Madras High Court
Government Of Puducherry vs The Central Administrative Tribunal on 12 December, 2014
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, K.K.Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2014
CORAM:
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
AND
The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.P.No.26515 of 2014
1. Government of Puducherry
rep. By Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Puducherry.
2. The Director of School Education,
Puducherry. ... Petitioners
versus
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
rep. By the Registrar,
Additional City Civil Court Buildings,
High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104.
2. Pampana Valibaba .... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.1161/2010 dated 24.6.2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. R. Syed Mustaffa
For second Respondent : Mr. M. Ravi
O R D E R
The Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal appears to be very generous in the matter of relaxation and regularisation. The Tribunal taking into account the fact that the second respondent approached it for relief for the 5th time, directed the petitioners to consider his case for appointment as primary school teacher in any one of the two vacancies relating to the year 2000 by granting relaxation. Since the direction was in violation of the Recruitment Rules and without taking into account the cases of others, who are languishing for employment opportunities, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. The second respondent initiated process to fill up the post of primary school teachers in the union territory of Pondicherry. The Government have constituted departmental recruitment committee to fill up 25 vacancies in the region of Yanam. The second respondent was also an applicant for appointment, however, he was not selected. The second respondent therefore filed O.A.No. 516 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal ( herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal') for appointing him to the post of primary school teacher against Other Backward Class vacancy, which remained unfilled due to litigations, by relaxing the Recruitment Rules. The original application was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to consider his case on merits. The Government rejected the request by order dated 12.9.2002.
3. The second respondent filed second original application in O.A.No. 635 of 2003 again with a prayer to consider his case for appointment after granting relaxation. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.4.2004 directed the petitioners to consider the case for relaxation. However, the Education Department rejected the request by order dated 04.10.2004.
4. The second respondent challenged the order dated 04.10.2004 in O.A.No. 1075 of 2004. The original application was disposed of by order dated 15.3.2005 and a direction was issued to consider the case of the second respondent once again in the light of the earlier order in O.A.No. 785 of 2003. The Education Department, having found that there are other candidates above him in the list, rejected the representation.
5. The second respondent filed another application in O.A.No. 55 of 2010 to consider his claim for appointment as primary school teacher under other backward class category of Yanam region. The original application was disposed of as usual by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.2.2010. The Tribunal directed the Government to consider the matter once again. The Government on its part rejected the representation by order dated 8.4.2010.
6. The second respondent challenged the order dated 8.4.2010 in O.A.No. 1161 of 2010.
7. The Tribunal found that another candidate by name Erragunta Ganesh Babu was appointed in the year 2002 by giving relaxation. The Tribunal was of the view that the second respondent approached for the 5th time and as such he should be given relief. The Tribunal passed an order dated 24.6.2013 directing the petitioners to consider the case of the second respondent for appointment as primary school teacher in one of the two vacancies of the year 2000 by granting necessary relaxation of Recruitment Rules.
8. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
9. This is a classic case in which, the Tribunal entertained series of original applications notwithstanding the conclusiveness reached earlier.
10. The second respondent was an applicant for appointment to the post of primary school teacher in the year 2000. He was not having the required minimum marks even for making an application. The candidate for appointment should possess 50% marks in higher secondary but the second respondent was having only 46.7% marks.
11. The claim made by the second respondent was rejected by the petitioners time and again by giving valid reasons. The act of giving relaxation to a candidate in the year 2002 taking into account the aggregate marks obtained by him in the selection process appears to be the reason for filing subsequent original applications by the second respondent and the orders passed by the Tribunal one after another.
12. At the time of filing the original application in O.A.No. 1161 of 2010 in September 2010, the second respondent was 44 years old. The Tribunal was therefore required to relax not only the educational qualification but also the age criteria. The Tribunal appears to be under the impression that relaxation is a matter of right. The Tribunal failed to consider the fundamental fact that selection was conducted in the year 2000. By the time the original application was taken up for final disposal, 12 years have passed. The Tribunal should have rejected the original application in limini as it would not be possible to direct the petitioners to give appointment after a period of 12 years. The Government cannot be directed to fill up the post without resorting to the process of direct recruitment. Even the validity of the waiting list for the year 2000 expired long back. The Tribunal therefore erred in directing the petitioners to consider the case of the second respondent for appointment by giving relaxation. The Tribunal clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a direction for relaxation for the purpose of accommodating the second respondent in the selection conducted during the year 2000. We are therefore of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
13. In the result, the order dated 24.6.2013 in O.A.No. 1161 of 2010 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2014 is closed. No costs.
[S.K.A.,J] [K.K.S., J.]
12.12.2014
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes/no
ra
To
1. Government of Puducherry
rep. By Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Puducherry.
2. The Director of School Education,
Puducherry.
3. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Additional City Civil Court Buildings,
High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104.
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J
ra
W.P. No.26515 of 2014
12.12.2014