Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D Chandra Sekhar vs Msme on 23 March, 2023
OA/473/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/473/2021
HYDERABAD, this the 23rd day of March, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Administrative Member
D. Chandra Sekhar,
S/o. late Shri D. Ramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Addl. Indl Advisor,
MSME Development Institute,
Hyderabad.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. K. Sudhaker Reddy)
Vs.
1. The Union of India rep. by
Secretary - MSME,
Government of India,
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,
Udyog Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. Mrs. S. Glory Swarupa,
The Director General,
NIMSME, Govt. of India,
Ministry of MSME, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Megha Rani Agarwal, Sr. PC for CG
Mrs. A.V.S. Laxmi, Counsel for R-2)
----
Page 1 of 7
OA/473/2021
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Administrative Member) The present O.A. is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"........to call for the records and to quash and set aside the impugned order of appointment of the 2nd respondent to the post of Director General, National Institute for Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (NIMSME), Hyderabad vide No.A- 12018(11)/2/2016-HR dated 20th March, 2020 in pursuance of the Vacancy Circular dated 12.09.2019 and the Order No.26(1)/2020-EDI(Pt)e dated 18th May, 2021 issued by the R-1 as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and Non-est in the eyes of law and recommend for action against the officers responsible for deliberately issuing the misleading rejection order and for total misuse of powers and for showing nepotism for gain and recover all the salary paid to the 2nd respondent from officer's responsible and consequently direct the R-1 herein to continue the additional charge of the applicant as DG, NIMSME, Hyderabad which he was holding before the selection of the R-2 till the selection process for the post of DG, NIMSME is completed in pursuance of the Vacancy Circular No.A-12018(11)/2/2016-HR dated 12th September, 2019."
2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the Vacancy Circular dated 12.9.2019 issued by Ministry of MSME for filling up the vacant post of Director General, National Institute for MSME (NI-MSME), in the pay level of 13A, the applicant applied for the post of Director General on deputation basis. Out of 42 applications, 15 candidates were presumed to have been fulfilling the eligibility criteria and have been shortlisted for interaction both from deputationists and contract appointment incumbents. The applicant was shortlisted for interaction conducted on 11.2.2020 at New Delhi. He is in the pay level-13 and is having 23 years of training experience relevant to entrepreneurship development. He has been serving the MSME organization in different capacities and was also holding the additional charge as Director General, NI-MSME, Hyderabad at the time of interaction for the post of DG. The Page 2 of 7 OA/473/2021 applicant was also given extension as DG, NIMSME vide order dated 21.1.2020.
3. It is the grievance of the applicant that despite fulfilling all the eligibility criteria and having vast experience in MSME sector, he has not been selected for the DG post and Dr. S. Glory Swarupa i.e. Respondent No.2 herein, who is not fulfilling the mandatory eligibility criteria even, has been selected. It is contended by the applicant that the 2nd respondent was not holding the analogous post in 13-A pay level as per the VII CPC and she projected her position as the Director in Shankara Group of Educational Institutions in Jaipur, a private institution. It is further contended by the applicant that Respondent No.2 has drawn Rs.1.25 lakhs lump sum salary including all allowances for a short period of 6 months which cannot be treated as holding a post carrying pay level 13 and hence the very appointment to the post of DG (NIMSME) is illegal and non-est in the eyes of law. According to the applicant, the 2nd respondent is not fulfilling the condition of experience of training/ teaching for 15 years in the field of entrepreneurship development and her total experience in this area is hardly 8 to 9 years. Moreover, she is possessing just a post graduation degree in Chemistry and is not having the desired qualification of Ph.D. The applicant contended that the 2nd respondent furnished false experience certificates and the respondents have selected her without verifying her credentials. It is stated by the applicant that the Vacancy Circular is intended for appointment of DG from amongst the deputationists and not from open market and there is no mention of Direct Recruitment in it. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Page 3 of 7 OA/473/2021 Supreme Court in the State of Bihar & Others vs Devendra Sharma in Civil Appeal No.7879 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11885 of 2012), in State of Jammu and Kashmir vs District Bar Association [2016(12)SCALE 534], etc.
4. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed reply stating that a high-powered Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of MSME met on 3.1.2020 and shortlisted 15 candidates including Dr. S. Glory Swarupa for personal interaction based on the Recruitment Rules for the post of DG. On 11.2.2020, the Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of MSME interviewed the shortlisted candidates and unanimously recommended the name of Dr. S. Glory Swarupa for appointment to the post of DG, NI-MSME based on her performance during the interview as well as her qualifications and experience. It is stated that NI-MSME is an autonomous organization of Ministry of MSME functioning under self-financing mode and has the practice of appointing eligible professionals from private sector as Director General on contract basis. The recent two appointments for the post of DG, NI-MSME were from private sector on contract basis. The present appointment is in line with the previous appointments. It is categorically stated by the respondents that as per extant Recruitment Rules (RRs), the eligibility criteria for the post of DG are different for appointment on deputation basis and for appointment on contract basis. Eligibility criteria mentioned in para 2 of the Vacancy Circular dated 12.9.2019 is meant for appointment on deputation basis whereas the criteria mentioned in para 3 of the vacancy circular is meant for appointment on contract basis. Thus, the Page 4 of 7 OA/473/2021 criteria prescribed in para 2 of the Vacancy Circular do not apply in the case of Dr. S. Glory Swarupa. She fulfills the requisite experience and criteria as prescribed in para 3 of the Vacancy Circular dated 12.9.2019 for the post of Director General, NI-MSME on contract basis. She has vast experience of 21 years 6 months in academic, teaching, training in area of entrepreneurship development. She also made significant contributions through research, publications and extension, as clarified in the speaking order dated 18.5.2021 of the Ministry of MSME. According to the respondents, the selection process was fair and transparent and was conducted in accordance with the provisions made in Recruitment Rules to the post of DG. It is stated by the respondents that there is no ambiguity about deputation or contract. The criteria for appointment on deputation basis and appointment on contract basis have been specifically prescribed in para 2 and para 3 respectively in the Vacancy Circular dated 12.9.2019. The applicant has interpreted the particulars of Vacancy Circular as per his convenience.
5. Respondent No.2 also filed a separate reply, the sum and substance of which is that her name has been unanimously recommended by a high- powered Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of MSME for appointment to the post of DG, NI-MSME based on her performance during the interview as well as her qualifications and experience. It is categorically submitted therein that she fulfilled the criteria prescribed for appointment on contract basis in the Vacancy Circular dated 12.09.2019. She contended that her appointment is in line with the previous appointments made by the 1st respondent. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Page 5 of 7 OA/473/2021 Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 argued that in the present O.A., the applicant is not seeking to appoint him as Director General, NI_MSME but his main relief is to set aside the appointment of the 2nd respondent. He relied upon the judgement dated 5.12.2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. S.N. Sahu vs Chairman, Rajya Sabha (Delhi) [2017(237) DLT 10] and argued that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed in the light of the above judgement.
6. Heard Mr. K. Sudhaker Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Megha Rani Agarwal, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2.
7. We find that the applicant mainly contends that the selected candidate i.e. Respondent No.2 does not have 15 years' experience in entrepreneurship development. This is an issue which was gone into in detail by a duly constituted Committee of MSME. It is seen that the candidate, who has been selected has been selected on contract basis and not on deputation basis. Although the Vacancy Circular largely talks about conditions for appointment on deputation basis, there is a provision for appointment on contract basis in the Vacancy Circular. It is also seen that there is a practice of appointing eligible professionals from private sector as Director General on contract basis and previous appointments were also made on contract basis as per the Recruitment Rules.
8. Coming to legal position, in the case of S.N. Sahu(supra) cited by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Page 6 of 7 OA/473/2021 relief of certiorari cannot be granted because for seeking the relief of certiorari as a personal right, the petitioner must plead locus standi and which locus standi would stand pleaded only if the petitioner seeks his own appointment, otherwise it will tantamount to PIL and, therefore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs. In the case in hand also, the applicant sought to set aside the appointment of the 2nd respondent to the post of Director General, NI-MSME, Hyderabad and a direction to continue his additional charge as DG, NI-MSME, Hyderabad which he was holding before the selection of the 2nd respondent till the selection process for the post of DG, NI-MSME is completed in pursuance of the Vacancy Circular dated 12.9.2019. The applicant did not seek to appoint him as Director General, NI-MSME, Hyderabad. Therefore, we follow the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of S.N. Sahu (supra). We observe that the present O.A. is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B. ANAND) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/pv/
Page 7 of 7