Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ujjwal Narayan vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 31 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
TA 9/2012
(CWP 5274/2011)
MA 1213/2012
With
OA 800/2012
New Delhi this the 31st day of May, 2012
Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A)
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
TA 9/2012
1. Ujjwal Narayan,
Son of Shri Sachida Nand Singh,
R/o Kanti Kunj H.No. 273-C, Adarsh Vihar
Bye Pass Road, Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
Pin-208015
2. Himansu Singh,
Son of Shri Mahendra Kumar Singh,
R/o C-110, Nanak Pura, New Delhi
Pin-110021
3. Sailesh Kumar Vimal,
Son of Shri Harinandan Prasad,
R/o Mahraj Ganj, Naubatpur
Patna (Bihar)
4. Kumar Birendra,
Son of Shri M.P. Tiwari,
R/o B/7, Indrapuri Path,
Saristabad (Naya Tola),
Gardani Bagh, Patna (Bihar)
Pin-800001
5. Ratnakar Pandey,
Son of Shri Sudhakar Pandey,
R/o Plot No. R-1,
Prasant Colony, Chennai (Tamilnadu)
Pin-600073
6. Saikat Barman,
Son of Shri Sudhin Kumar Barman,
R/o Santa Ram Arya Road
Near Friends Club,
Ranaghat, Nadia (West Bengal)
Pin-741201
7. Swapnil Haridas Thakre,
Son of Shri Hari Das Thakre,
R/o Plot No. 47,
Omkar Nagar, Wasekar Layout
Haweli Garoen Road, Chandrapura,
(Maharashtra)
Pin-442402
8. Manoj Kumar Lihare,
Son of Shri Netram Lihare,
R/o G-4, C.A.D. Colony,
Jagdalla, Champa, District Janigair,
(Chhatish Garh)
Pin-495671
9. Vijay Kumar Nehra,
Son of Shri R.S. Nehra,
R/o B-97, MFL Township, Vijapur,
District Guna (Madhya Pradesh)
Pin-473111
10. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava,
Son of Shri Kamal Kishor Srivastava,
R/o 136, EWS, Barra-3, Janta Nagar,
Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
Pin-208027
11. Ashish Kumar Verma,
S/o Shri Jai Pal Singh
R/o Q.No. B-234, MFL Township, Vijapur,
District Guna (Madhya Pradesh)
Pin 473111
12. Amar Singh,
Son of Shri Narendra Singh,
R/o R/9, C-35/B, Sector-01,
LDA Colony, Kanpur Road,
Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
13. Mayank Verma,
Son of Shri Shamsher Singh,
R/o 5/8, Suraj Nagar,
Azamgpur, New Delhi
Pin-110033
14. Yadu Kumar Yadav,
Son of Shri Attar Singh Yadav,
R/o 173 , Police Line,
Hissar (Haryana)
15. Alok Kumar Barik,
Son of Shri Ananta Kumar Barik,
R/o Q.No. A/135, Sector-7
Raurkela, District Sunder Garh (Orissa)
Pin-769003
16. Lalit Shankar Rao Kamade,
Son of Shri Shankar Krishna Jeet Kamade,
R/o Plot No. 95, Near B.R.O.
Colony Krishna Nagar Ward No. 96 Basauda
Layout, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
Pin-440009
17. Jatin Saini,
Son of Shri Ram Kumar Saini,
R/o 23-A, Gali Shiv Mandir,
Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi
Pin-110088 .Petitioners
(Through Shri Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Industry,
Govt. of India,
New Delhi
2. The Director General,
National Productivity Council,
Utpadakta Bhawan, 5-E Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Pin-110003
3. Director & Head (AIP),
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Productivity,
6, Sidco, Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai (Tamilnadu) 600098 .Respondents
(Through Shri Sunil Bangar, Advocate for R-1
Shri K.Sultan Singh with Shri A.S.Dey, Advocate for R-2
and 3)
OA 800/2012
Sumit Arora,
Son of Shri Ashok Kumar,
Resident of A-5, Tagore Garden Extn,
New Delhi-110027 .Applicant
(Through Ms. Pooja Rai for Shri Ishan Manchanda, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. National Productivity Council,
Through its Director General,
Utpadakta Bhawan, 5-E Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. Director & Head (AIP),
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Productivity,
6, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai (Tamilnadu) 600098 .Respondents
(Through Shri K.Sultan Singh with Shri A.S.Dey)
O R D E R
Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A):
TA 9/2012 as well as OA 800/2012 are being disposed of by this common order as they are based on same set of facts and circumstances. The facts are being extracted from TA 9/2012.
2. Vide orders of the Honble High Court dated 12.03.2012, Writ Petition No.5274/2011 was transferred to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. There are 17 petitioners in the above mentioned Writ Petition and one applicant in OA 800/2012. The applicants in the Writ Petition sought the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 i.e. National Productivity Council to appoint the petitioners on the post of Assistant Director within stipulated period.
ii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.
3. The brief facts are that an advertisement was published, which was also available at the website, which stated that National Productivity Council (NPC) announces one year Post Graduate Certificate Programme. It was one year full time training at the cost of Rs.1 lakh per year per candidate. It also stated that successful self-sponsored candidates may be considered for appointment as Assistant Director in NPC in the scale of Rs.15600-39100/-, Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- plus allowances as per NPC Rules. This advertisement is placed at Annexure P-1. In pursuance of the same, the applicants submitted their forms along with requisite fee. In the rules and guidelines of NPC dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), under the heading of `Placement, it has been stated that On successful completion of the training, you will be absorbed as Assistant Director in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- as per merit list and depending on the vacancies in National Productivity Council. The applicants underwent the one year training but in spite of the fact that vacancies were available in NPC, they have not been appointed on the post of Assistant Director as assured earlier.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3, it has been stated that NPC is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Industries, Government of India. In the year 2009, Post Graduate Certificate Programme was advertised in Industrial Engineering, Energy Management and Environment Management of a period of one year. The programme was to be conducted at the Training Centre at Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Chennai. It has been clarified that such programmes are conducted with the aim of enhancing the skill set of technical professionals in the country and not for the purpose of recruitment, although, subject to vacancies and financial viability, meritorious trainees are from time to time considered for employment. Accordingly the advertisement clearly stated that Successful self-sponsored candidates may be considered for appointment as Assistant Director in NPC. It also clarified that offer letters dated 28.10.2009 stated that On successful completion of the training, you will be absorbed as Assistant Director in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- as per merit list and depending on the vacancies in National Productivity Council. Therefore, the employment was conditional. It has also been stated that it was the intention of respondent no.2 to employ some of the trainees in the merit list as Assistant Directors as there were vacancies in the post but it was subject to availability of finances. An assessment was made in mid-2010 by respondent no.2, which revealed that the appointment of each new Assistant Director would involve an expenditure of Rs.5.5 lakhs per year whereas the organization was facing severe financial crisis and several retired employees had not been paid their dues. Relevant notings on the file regarding the difficult financial conditions in the NPC are shown at Annexure R-5. In view of this position, the Director General of NPC had to suspend the recruitment protocol for trainees on the programmes. At the same time, the Director General, NPC directed that a placement cell be set up at AIP, Chennai for facilitating the placement of trainees with various private and public sector organizations and due to the efforts of respondent no.2 and the Placement Cell, 55 out of the total number of 65 trainees had been absorbed in various organizations including 10 trainees, who had been engaged by respondent no.2 on contract basis. Thus, it is the contention of the respondents that they were not compelled to appoint the trainees and that mere completion of course does not confer any right to be absorbed on the post of Assistant Director. The advertisement very clearly states that successful self-sponsored candidates may be considered for appointment. Even the letter dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) mentions that on successful completion of the training, the candidates will be absorbed as Assistant Director as per merit list and vacancies in NPC.
5. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record on file.
6. A perusal of Annexure P-1 and P-3 would show that although both are regarding One Year Post Graduate Certificate Programme both mention placement as Assistant Director, NPC. It is also clear that it was the mention of placement as Assistant Director which encouraged the applicants to apply for the Post Graduate Programme. It is but natural that after completion of the course, they would have expectations to be appointed on the post of Assistant Director in the NPC. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that on examination, it was found that NPC was suffering from financial crisis and that it was not in a position to bear the expenditure to be incurred upon Assistant Directors, in case they were to be recruited. It is an established fact that there are large number of vacancies available in the NPC to the post of Assistant Director. What is preventing the NPC from making these appointments is financial difficulties that they are facing. We also note the fact that NPC has not made any appointments to the post of Assistant Director after the applicants completed their Post Graduation course of one year.
7. It is not for the Tribunal to force the respondents to take the decision to fill the posts of Assistant Director even if they are having the financial crunch but we would like to dispose of these applications with direction to the respondents that whenever the financial position improves and they are in a position to make recruitments to the post of Assistant Director, the applicants herein are to be considered and only then the other sources may be touched. With the above directions, both the applications are disposed of. No costs.
(A.K. Bhardwaj) (Manjulika Gautam) Member (J) Member (A) /dkm/