Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs R.G.Harish Kumar on 2 June, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO
WRIT PETITION NO.31086/2015 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE
SHIMOGA DIVISION,
SHIMOGA - 577 202.
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL,
ARMY POSTAL SERVICE
2
BENGALURU - 560 025.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, CGC)
AND:
R.G.HARISH KUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O R.GOVINDARAJ
JCO NO.834969-F, APS CENTRE
KOMPTEE NAGAR
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:
FILTER HOUSE ROAD
CHITRDURGA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2015 (ANNEXURE-
A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN
O.A.NO.986/2013.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 07.03.2017 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT
PATEL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity) in O.A.No.986/2013, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the application and has further observed that the respondent-original applicant shall be placed equivalent to Smt.Latha S.Gokavi, who is already selected with all benefits to the concerned date onwards.
2. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioners undertook the selection process for the post of Inspectors. The examinations were conducted and the select list was also prepared. The respondent- original applicant participated in the said selection process and his name was also included in the select list, but the benefit of 'APS Relaxed Standard' was given 4 to him as per O.M. dated 07.06.1965. Thereafter the list was operated. The appointments were also given. But so far as the respondent is concerned, he was not offered appointment and the candidate later in the select list as per the mark secured, was given appointment. The respondent had secured '293' marks, whereas the candidates who secured marks upto '288' were given appointment. As the respondent was not offered appointment, he preferred the application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately passed the above referred order. Under the circumstances, the present petition.
3. We have heard Mr.B.Pramod, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Respondent is served but unrepresented.
4. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the APS Scheme for Relaxed 5 Standard was withdrawn by the Department from 21.07.2011 and therefore as the Scheme was withdrawn, the respondent could not be considered for appointment and it was also submitted that there is no right with the candidate for appointment whose name is included in the select list and therefore the order of the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with.
5. As such, the contention may prima facie show substance, but upon close scrutiny, it appears that the select list was already prepared as back as in the year 2009 and the candidates were offered appointment upto the period 2009. It is not the case of the petitioners that the appointment to the last candidate Ms.Nalini B.N. who secured 288 marks was given after 21.07.2011. Be it recorded that the so-called policy was modified of giving non-weightage to the APS Relaxed Standard only on 21.07.2011. It is by now well settled 6 that once the process of selection has started, all policy and the criteria laid down at the time of initiation of process would be applicable. Any change at the later stage in the qualification or the eligibility criteria would not be applicable until the selection process is completed and the select list is considered for the purpose of appointment.
6. It is true that the candidate whose name is included in the select list has no indefeasible right but he/she would be justified in raising the grievance if the appointment is offered to a candidate lower in the select list or who secured lesser marks in comparison to the candidate who secured higher marks. As observed by us earlier, the last candidate to whom the appointment was offered had secured '288' marks, whereas the respondent had secured '293' marks. As such, on account of the fact that the respondent secured '293' 7 marks, his name was required to be placed in the selection accordingly and in any case his name was required to be considered for the purpose of appointment after the name of Ms.Latha S. Gokavi, who had also secured '293' marks. But it appears that the petitioners offered the appointment to three candidates who secured lesser marks than the respondent and the respondent was not considered for appointment.
7. Under these circumstances, we find that the direction of the Tribunal in the impugned order to place the name of the respondent after Smt.Latha S.Gokavi, would not call for interference. However, so far as the conferment of the benefits from the said date is concerned, we find it appropriate to clarify that based on the order of the Tribunal the appointment shall be offered to the respondent but the financial benefit would accrue from the date of appointment and not from the 8 date on which Smt.Latha S.Gokavi, was given appointment. It is also clarified that after the appointment is given and the respondent joins the duty, the respondent shall be at the liberty to make appropriate representation to confer the date of seniority next to Smt.Latha S.Gokavi, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The order passed by the Tribunal shall operate with the aforesaid clarification.
8. Petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-