Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Awadhesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2024
(Reserved on 04.01.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 460 of 2010
This the 09th day of January 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Awadhesh Kumar aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav,
Resident of 3A/2 Chak Bhatahi Naini, Post Naini, District Allahabad.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Defence Secretary, Government of
India, Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi 110011.
2. Director General E.M.E. (EME-Civ), Army Headquarters
D.H.Q. P.O. New Delhi 110011.
3. Commandant and M.D. 508 Army Base Workshop, the Fort,
Allahabad 211005.
4. Saranjeet Singh S/o Jasbinder Pal Singh (O.V. No. 016)
Resident of House No. 13 Guru Nanak Nagar, Naini,
Allahabad employed as Vehicle Mechanic in 508 Army Base
Workshop, Allahabad through Commandant, & MD 508 Army
Base Workshop, Allahabad 211005.
5. Bhring Raj Singh S/o Anirudha Singh (O.V. 037) resident of
village Kanaily Post Office Sarai Aquil, Police Station Sarai
Aquil, District Kaushambi, employed as Vehicle Mechanic in
508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad through Commandant,
& MD 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad 211005.
6. Man Singh, S/o Achau Singh (O.V. No. 023) R/o Village
Ganga, Post Office Pipari, District Kaushambi, employed as
Vehicle Mechanic in 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad
through Commandant, & MD 508 Army Base Workshop,
Allahabad 211005.
7. Ravi Shankar Sharma S/o Mehi Lal Sharma (O.V. No. 010)
Resident of House NO. 43/28 C, South Lokpur, Naini, District
Allahabad, employed as Vehicle Mechanic in 508 Army Base
Workshop, Allahabad through Commandant, & MD 508 Army
Base Workshop, Allahabad 211005.
8. Manoj Kumar Gupta, S/o Gyan Chandra Gupta (O.V No. 012)
Resident of Village Sarai Aquil Khas, Post office Sarai Aquil,
District Kaushambi, employed as Vehicle Mechanic in 508
Army Base Workshop, Allahabad through Commandant, &
MD 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad 211005.
2
9. Amit Kumar Verma, S/o Gopal Ji Verma (O.V. No. 040)
resident of House No. 302/258, Badshahi Mandi, District
Allahabad, employed as Vehicle Mechanic in 508 Army Base
Workshop, Allahabad through Commandant, & MD 508 Army
Base Workshop, Allahabad 211005.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Amitabh Kumar Sinha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue, writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25 Feb 2010 (Annexure A1 to Compilation No.1) passed by respondent No. 3.
(ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the irregular appointments of three candidates i.e. Shri Saranjeet Singh, Shri Bhring Raj Singh and Shri Man Singh and also issue suitable directions to select and appoint the applicant as Vehicle Mechanic considering the seniority of Apprenticeship Training in the trade of Vehicle Mechanic in 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad from the date when Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta has been appointed with all consequential benefits, by amending the result declared on 29.05.2006.
(iii) To grant any other and further relief to the applicant which may be available in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Cost of application may be granted in favour of the applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are that a notification dated 23.09.2005 was published in Hindi Daily newspaper inviting applications for appointment of six posts of Motor Mechanic in 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad. The essential qualification as per notification was I.T.I. in Motor Mechanic Trade and desirable qualification was 2 years' experience in the trade. Since the applicant had passed ITI and completed one year apprenticeship training in 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad, applied for the post of Vehicle Mechanic in pursuance of notification dated 23.09.2005. After scrutiny of 3 applications, applicant was issued admit card for appearing in written examination held on 22.12.2005. Applicant passed the written examination and called for interview but he could not be passed the interview. Applicant sought the names of those selected candidates who were selected for the aforesaid posts. Applicant got information from the respondents that six persons have been appointed. Aggrieved against the illegal selection of aforesaid six persons, applicant filed OA No. 683 of 2006 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by order dated 19.01.2010 with a direction to the applicant to file detailed representation before the Competent Authority and directions were also issued to the respondents to decide the representation within a period of three months. Under the direction of this Tribunal, applicant submitted representation dated 01.02.2010. It is also pleaded that without considering the points raised by the applicant in his representation, respondent No.3 rejected the representation of the applicant vide their order dated 25.02.2010. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this O.A.
3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit, stating therein that in pursuance of notification dated 23.09.2005, 46 candidates found eligible and called for appearing in the written test. In accordance with the reservation roster 06 vacancies were earmarked for OBC candidates, 01 vacancy was earmarked for ST candidate. Written test results were declared based on marks secured by the candidates. Applicant was not included in the merit list owing to securing less mark as compare to other selected candidates. Applicant filed OA No. 683 of 2006, which was decided vide order dated 19.01.2010 at the admission stage with a direction to decide the representation of the applicant. In compliance of direction of this Tribunal, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2010.
4. Rejoinder Reply has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants by which he has reiterated the facts as stated in the O.A. 4
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that respondents have violated the provisions of Article 14 and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India as well as policies with regard to reservation of posts. Learned counsel further submitted that list of selected 6 candidates declared on 29.05.2006 by the respondents is unlawful, arbitrary, malafide and bad in law inasmuch as three selected candidates were not competent for appearing in the examination because they do not possess I.T.I. training certificate, one year practical apprenticeship certificate, two years' experience of Motor Mechanic and had also not obtained NCVT test certificate conducted by National Council for Vocational Training of Govt. of India. It is further submitted that applicant possessed apprenticeship certificate from 15.04.1999 to 14.04.2000 from 508 Army Base Workshop and was entitled for availing preference over others in the selection and appointment to the post of Vehicle Mechanic in 508 Army Base Workshop. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that applicant is legally entitled for appointment as Vehicle Mechanic on the basis of notification dated 23.09.2005 having prescribed qualification as per notification and being senior to two candidates. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Alok Kumar Vs. Union of India and others decided on 06.10.2016 in OA No. 881/2015..
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since 06 vacancies were required to be filled up as such first 06 candidates who secured higher marks were selected for the post of Vehicle Mechanic. Learned counsel further submitted that vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment as such all the candidates, who were applied for, including applicant, who have completed their apprenticeship, were allowed for appearing in the written test. It is also submitted that preference has been given to all the candidates who have 5 completed their apprenticeship training in accordance with Government of India's letter dated 14.05.1998.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant refuting the submission raised on behalf of respondents argued that it was not a open market selection post. The candidates were to be selected from the trained apprentices.
9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire record.
10. In the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that "no right can be claimed when a candidate appeared in the examination without any protest."
11. In the case of Mehmood Alam Tariq and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others reported in 1988 3 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that "in the selection process interference is normally not called for in mode of conducting a selection by the authorities."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of J&K reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 has been pleased to observe that "No allegation of bias was raised and all selected candidates have joined, no ground left for unsuccessful candidate."
13 In the case of K. Prabhakara Rao Vs. UOI and others reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 205. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 2 has held as under:
"The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the fixation of minimum percentage of marks in the viva voce test as per paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual can be held to be in accordance with law or not. So far as this question is concerned, the two judgments of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court by dismissing the SLP filed 6 by the Union of India. The appellant being similarly situated as the applciant in OA No. 149 of 1992 and OA No. 837 of 1991, and in fact, in the merit list having occupied higher position than them it would not be reasonable to deny the relief to him, which has been given to the applicant in OA No. 149/1992 and OA No. 837/1991. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal at Madras and direct that the case of the appellant be considered, as if there is no qualifying marks in the viva voce test, as indicated in paragraph 205 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Chapter 2. The decision of the Railway Administration be communicated to the appellant at an earlier date".
14. In various judgments, Apex Court has observed that Court cannot assume the role of selection committee and evaluate the fitness of the candidate for a particular post. In the instant case, the applicant appeared in the selection process without any protest but he could not pass in the written test, practical test and interview due to lesser marks. The plea taken by the applicant that preference should have been given to the applicant as he had completed apprenticeship training in 508 Army Base Workshop is concerned as preference for apprenticeship training was also given to the applicant and he was permitted to appear in the selection process. He has not raised any sort of objection by that time. It is not disputed that applicant secured less mark that the selected candidates.
15. It is also to be pointed out that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. The process consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Normally the task of selection is assigned to a selection committee and the function of such a committee is to select those amongst the eligible candidates on the basis of merit adjudged by adopting fairly laid down criteria and finally preparing a panel or select list of the successful or selected candidates.
16. Admittedly, the applicant appeared in the selection process and when his name was not found in the final list, he agitated the same. In 7 fact, the applicant could not be placed in the merit list on account of marks obtained by him, as such, his name was not included in the final select list. It is also notable that all selected candidates have joined their posts. Now, much water has flown. After lapse of about 15 years, cancelling the whole selection process and disturbing the selected candidates would also disturb the post selection made thereafter.
17. Apart to this, if the total marks obtained by the applicant in the said examination are taken into consideration, he did not secure marks in comparison to the selected candidates. As far as case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned that preference should have been given to candidates who acquired apprenticeship training, we hold that preference for apprenticeship training was given to the candidates, but he could not be selected as consolidated marks in the written exam, practical test and interview were lesser than as compared to the first 06 candidates. Since as per version of learned counsel for respondents, marks for apprenticeship training were not awarded at the time of selection of the successful candidates, therefore, the case law relied upon by the applicant will of no help. The respondents have followed the direction given in the OA No.683/2006 filed by the applicant. Thus considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and as per analysis made herein above, we are of the view that applicant has not made out a case for granting any relief to him as claimed in the OA.
18. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. All pending MAs in the O.A. also stand disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash-VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-