Karnataka High Court
Smt Rani Ramaswamy vs Centre For Development Of Telematics on 6 June, 2023
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
-1-
WA No.2502 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.2502 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RANI RAMASWAMY
W/O T. LAKSHMANAN
Digitally AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
signed by ASSOCIATE (ADMINISTRATION)
RUPA V C-DOT, PHASE, I ELECTRONICS CITY
Location: HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU 560100.
High Court
of Karnataka
RESIDENT OF
# 48, B SECTOR, AMRUTHNAGAR
SAHAKARANAGAR PO, BENGALURU 560092.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T. ADV.,)
AND:
1. CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS
BY ITS REGISTRAR
C-DOT, MEHRAULI CAMPUS
NEW DELHI 110030.
2. THE MANAGER HR
C-DOT, PHASE I, ELECTRONICS CITY
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU 560100.
3. SRI. SOUNDARA KUMAR M
DIRECTOR -III, C-DOT, PHASE-I,
ELECTRONICS CITY
BENGALURU 560100.
-2-
WA No.2502 of 2018
4. UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ROOM NO.210, II FLOOR, SANCHAR BHAVAN
NEW DELHI 110001.
5. SMT. S.S. PAULA
WIFE OF M. SOUNDAR KUMAR
54 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
MMG, C-DOT PHASE I
ELECTRONIC CITY
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560100.
6. SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY
53 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
MMG, C-DOT, PHASE - I
ELECTRONIC CITY
HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU- 560100.
7. SMT. KALPANA
45 YEARS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OFFICE
C-DOT, PHASE - ELECTRONIC CITY
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560100.
8. SMT. BHARATHI MUNSHI
(DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2021)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, ADV., A/W
SRI. MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED, ADVS., FOR
R1-R3 & R5-R7
SRI. A. CHANDRA CHUD, CGSC FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
5.7.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITON 21682/2017 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
-3-
WA No.2502 of 2018
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated 05.07.2018 passed by Learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the respondent, seeking quashment of notification dated 29.09.2016 for recruitment of executives from internal sources, has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that Centre for Development Of Telemetric (hereinafter referred to as 'the C-DOT' for short) is telecom technology development centre, which was established in 1984. C-DOT is an autonomous institution and functions under the control of Government of India.
3. The appellant joined services in C-DOT as Secretary on 31.03.1993 and was promoted to the cadre of A-1 Grade on 30.07.1997. The appellant was further -4- WA No.2502 of 2018 promoted by an order dated 24.08.2000, with effect from 01.10.1999, to the cadre of A-2 Grade. The appellant obtained a Post Graduate Degree viz., Master of Labour Management on 11.09.2009 from Madurai Kamraj University.
4. C-DOT with the approval of the Board of Directors issued Circular No.4/93 dated 22.02.1993, by which a policy was framed for career growth to members of staff in various categories of the Board. Thereafter, C- DOT issued a modification to the aforesaid policy by issuing Circular No.15/93 dated 04.11.1993, in which it was prescribed that MBA with 60% marks, ICWA / CA with 55% marks or equivalent qualification is eligible to be considered for promotion. By another circular dated 06.08.1996, certain criteria was prescribed for in service candidates who had not secured 60% marks in the qualifying examination.
-5-WA No.2502 of 2018
5. Thereafter, C-DOT issued another policy Circular No.8/2003 dated 20.11.2003 modifying the policy for promotion for Executive Grade through internal selection . The eligibility criteria laid down in the aforesaid Circular reads as under:
2. ELIGIBILITY: The eligibility criteria for C-DOT internal candidates will be the same as that for external candidates appearing for the All India Research Engineers Examination.
However, internal candidates will be given relaxation of 5 years in the maximum age limit specified for general candidates. The criterion of minimum age limit specified for general candidates. The criterion of minimum marks in qualifying exam (B.Tech or equivalent) in case of C-DOT employees, would be 60%.
-6-WA No.2502 of 2018
6. However, C-DOT issued a notification on 29.09.2016 for recruitment of executives from internal sources. The work experience prescribed therein reads as under:
B. WORK EXPERIENCE:
Candidates who have scored less than 60% marks in the qualifying degree shall be given credit for their work experience in C-DOT. For every 5 years of completed service in C-Dot, grade of "Two percent marks" shall be allotted, subject to a maximum of 10 marks. The period of service mentioned shall be from the date of completion of the higher qualification and as on last date for submission of applications.
7. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition on or about 11.05.2017, in which validity of notification dated 29.09.2016 was challenged insofar as it provides for grant of grace marks for every 5 years of completed -7- WA No.2502 of 2018 service in C-DOT subject to a maximum of 10 marks on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 05.07.2018 inter alia held that merely because the appellant has obtained post graduation qualification at a particular time which would deny the benefit of weightage of marks by itself cannot be a ground to hold that inclusion of particular qualification is not in accordance with law. It was further held that the requirement of work experience has been prescribed in a uniform manner in respect of all the candidates. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that notification dated 29.09.2016 has been issued without changing the policy dated 20.11.2003. It is further submitted that the process of selection is vitiated on account of the fact that respondent No.3 had participated in the process of selection in which his wife -8- WA No.2502 of 2018 has been selected as a candidate. It is also urged that respondent No.6 and 7 lack requisite qualification as respondent No.6 and 7's duration of Post Graduation course is 1 year, whereas, the requirement is that Post Graduate Course should be of 2 years. It is also contended that selection is vitiated on account of bias. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme court in 'DR.G.SARANA VS. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW AND OTHERS', (1976) 3 SCC 585 AND 'ASHOK KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS VS,. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', (1985) 4 SCC 417.
9. On the other hand, Learned counsel for respondents submitted that respondent No.3 was not part of selection process inasmuch as written test was conducted by an external agency and respondent No.3 was not part of the three member interview committee. It is further submitted that decision to prescribe the -9- WA No.2502 of 2018 work experience was taken by all the Directors bonafide, which was approved by Executive Director. It is contended that allegations of bias are unfounded and respondents No.6 and 7 had requisite qualification. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on decision of 'MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE AND OTHERS', (2019) 6 SCC 362.
10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is trite law that qualification for appointment to a post is a matter which is in the realm of decision of an employer. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualification including grant of preference. The employer is best suitable to decide the requirements, a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot delve into the issue with regard to desirable
- 10 -
WA No.2502 of 2018qualifications and the question of equivalence is also outside the domain of judicial review. The court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide and interpret terms and conditions of the advertisement. [SEE: 'MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION' SUPRA].
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'P.D.DINAKARAN VS. HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE', (2011) 8 SCC 380 has summed up the principles of bias by applying the test of real likelihood of bias from the point of a fair minded informed observer. Para 71 of the judgment is extracted below for the facility of reference:
71. The principles which emerge from the aforesaid decisions are that no man can be a Judge in his own cause and justice should not only be done, but manifestly be seen to be done. Scales should not only be held even but it must not be seen to be
- 11 -WA No.2502 of 2018
inclined. A person having interest in the subject matter of cause is precluded from acting as a Judge. To disqualify a person from adjudicating on the ground of interest in the subject matter of lis, the test of real likelihood of the bias is to be applied. In other words, one has to enquire as to whether there is real danger of bias on the part of the person against whom such apprehension is expressed in the sense that he might favour or disfavour a party. In each case, the Court has to consider whether a fair minded and informed person, having considered all the facts would reasonably apprehend that the Judge would not act impartially. To put it differently, the test would be whether a reasonably intelligent man fully apprised of all the facts would have a serious apprehension of bias. In cases of non-pecuniary bias, the `real likelihood' test has been preferred over the `reasonable suspicion' test and the Courts have consistently held that in deciding the question of bias one has to take into
- 12 -
WA No.2502 of 2018consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct. We may add that real likelihood of bias should appear not only from the materials ascertained by the complaining party, but also from such other facts which it could have readily ascertained and easily verified by making reasonable inquiries.
Thus, the issue of bias has to be determined on the touchstone whether there is a real likelihood of bias on the part of a person against whom such an apprehension is expressed in the sense that he might favour or dis favour a party. The plea of bias has to be determined with reference to facts of each case.
12. In the instant case, a corporate policy circular No.8/2003 dated 20.11.2003 was issued by which eligibility for entry to executive cadre was prescribed. Under the aforesaid circular, for entry to executive cadre, a candidate should have obtained MBA degree with 60% marks or ICWA / CA with 55% marks or
- 13 -
WA No.2502 of 2018equivalent qualification. However, the staff members who were eligible in terms of earlier policy dated 04.11.1993 and 06.08.1996 were also permitted to appear for the selection process. Thereafter, the issue pertaining to recruitment of executives was put up before the Board of Directors. On 14.07.2016, qualification and criteria for recruitment of executives from internal resources was proposed. Two of the Directors of the Board opined that the selection criteria should be as per policy circular No.15/1993 or Circular No.8/2003. However, respondent No.3 opined that the issue be dealt with by Executive Director. Thereupon Executive Director as well as other Directors on 26.09.2006 approved the criteria. It is pertinent to note that similar criteria was prescribed in respect of another post. It is pertinent to note that appellant is neither qualified under policy circular No.15/1993 nor under policy circular No.8/2003, both of which prescribe that
- 14 -
WA No.2502 of 2018a candidate should have MBA with 60% marks or ICWA / CA with 50% marks. Admittedly, the appellant has passed the examination with 53.1% i.e., the appellant does not have post graduate degree with 60% marks.
13. The criteria prescribed for selection of the post in question has been fixed after due deliberations and by Board of Directors as well as the Executive Director of the company. The court cannot lay down conditions of eligibility. The qualification, which provides for weightage of marks from the day of acquisition of post graduate degree cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The date of acquisition of post graduate degree is a relevant criteria for determining the weightage of marks. Merely because, respondent No.3 was a part of the Board of Directors, which fix the criteria on a rational and reasonable basis, the same cannot be said to be vitiated on account of bias.
- 15 -
WA No.2502 of 2018
14. It is pertinent to note that written test was held by outside agency between 25.04.2017 to 27.04.2017 and interviews were held by a three member board of which respondent No.3 was not a part from 22.05.2017 till 23.05.2017. Thus, it can safely be inferred that respondent No.3 was not part of process of selection and therefore, we do not find the allegations of bias have no factual foundation and the same are repelled.
15. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the criteria prescribed for recruitment to the post of Executive. It is also not in dispute that appellant's case was considered on the basis of the criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of Executive and the appellant was not found suitable for appointment. The appellant therefore, has no locus to question the process of
- 16 -
WA No.2502 of 2018selection, which even otherwise, does not call for any interference.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Single Judge. However, the Board of Directors appears to have taken a decision in the month of April 2017 to initiate a fresh process for left out staff members. It is therefore, expected that such a process for left out staff members shall be initiated expeditiously.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS