Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Sugar Singh Meena vs M/O Mines on 22 March, 2022
1
OA No. 677/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 677/2017
Order reserved on 14.03.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 22.03.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sugar Singh Meena S/o Shri Ratti Ram Meena, aged
33 years, Resident of Village Kalakhana, Post Palanur,
Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli (Rajasthan).
....Applicant
Shri K.K. Sharma, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Mines, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Chief Administrative Officer cum Chief Officer,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Indira Bhavan, Civil
Lines, Nagpur-440001.
3. Regional Controller of Mines & Head of Office,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Indira Bhavan, Civil
Lines, Nagpur-440001.
.... Respondents
Shri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:- 2 OA No. 677/2017
"I. Issue an appropriate order or direction in nature thereof, order impugned dated 16.5.2016 delivered to applicant under RTI Act 2005 vide letter dated 1.6.2017 may kindly be quashed & set aside;
II. Issue an appropriate order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the applicant on the post of Pilot Plant Assistant against reserved category of ST on basis of recommendation of Selection Committee dated 30.07.2015;
III. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
IV. Cost of the original application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the respondent No. 2 had issued an Advertisement No. 1/2013 dated 27.05.2013 for filling up various 12 categories posts of Group 'B' (Non- Gazetted) & 'C' posts in Indian Bureau of Mines which includes one post of Pilot Plant Assistant in Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP Rs. 2400/- reserved for ST category candidate, and the applicant had applied in ST category as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment. He was issued a call letter dated 06.07.2015 for test/interview before Selection Committee on 30.07.2015 and he appeared before the 3 OA No. 677/2017 said Committee who recommended the applicant for appointment as Pilot Plant Assistant against ST category. After appearing before the Selection Committee as he did not receive any communication from respondents, he made an RTI application for information but during the intervening period, respondent no. 3 issued an order dated 30.09.2016 whereby the recruitment as advertised for the post of Junior Press Assistant was cancelled. In the information provided to the applicant, he was delivered a copy of OM dated 09.10.2015 regarding discontinuation of interviews for various junior level posts in the Govt. of India - recommendation of Committee of Secretaries and ordered that interview will be dispensed with for all Group 'C and Group 'D' posts. The interview should also be discontinued for non-gazetted posts of Group 'B' category. On the basis of recommendation according to OM dated 09.10.2015, respondents issued the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 whereby the advertisement No. 1/2013 for 1 (ST) post of Pilot Plant Assistant and subsequent test / interview conducted on 30.07.2015 was cancelled due to administrative reasons. The applicant had preferred an S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20144/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of 4 OA No. 677/2017 Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in a competent court vide order dated 29.11.2017 (Annexure A/7). It is the claim of the applicant that cancelling the advertisement is illegal and arbitrary which could not have retrospective effect once interview was conducted as he was within age when the vacancy was advertised and selection process was deliberately delayed though his name was recommended by the Selection Committee. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
3. After issue of notices, the respondents have filed their reply stating that the employer is within its prerogative and domain to cancel the advertisement/selection if not in accordance with the norms/rules. The applicant has not whispered a single word on this point and has utterly failed to establish an infringement of any of his legal rights. In fact, the recruitment process was cancelled on administrative reasons vide office order no. 90 dated 16.05.2016 and not on basis of DOPT OM dated 09.10.2015. In the instant case of Pilot Plant Assistant, no such specific 5 OA No. 677/2017 quota has been prescribed in the recruitment rules and, hence, the direct recruitment initiated by the office for the ST category in the 'failing which clause' violates the prescribed procedure of the Govt. of India. As such, the entire recruitment process was cancelled once the flaw was brought to the notice of the competent authority while placing the concerned office order on the official website. It is further stated that there is no contractual obligation on the part of the Department for providing employment to the selected and empanelled candidate and appointment under Govt. of India is based on the other set procedures after completion of the selection process and non-appointment of empanelled candidates does not violate any principles of natural justice as there is no contractual obligation. Since applicant has not been issued any offer of appointment, therefore, he does not have any claim over the post of Pilot Plant Assistant as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases. It was further stated that the applicant has not availed departmental remedies as such the Original Application filed by the applicant is premature and deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the Original Application of the applicant is not 6 OA No. 677/2017 maintainable and as there is no merits in the case of applicant, the same deserves to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents. He further stated that the respondents after completing the entire regular process of selection for making appointment on the post of Pilot Plant Assistant and even after selection of the applicant on merit, the respondents without having any valid reasons or cogent grounds have not issued the appointment letter to the applicant. The selection procedure has not been challenged and questioned before any competent court of law till date so the respondent has no reason or basis for not issuing appointment to the applicant. The present O.A. is preferred against the non-issuance of appointment letter to the applicant after his selection on merits. The entire action on the part of the respondents for not issuing appointment letter to the applicant is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustifiable, unjust and capricious and contrary to the statutory provisions and towards principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, 7 OA No. 677/2017 the applicant has relied upon several judgments, some of them are as under:-
"a) Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., reported in AIR 1974 SC 555.
b) Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230.
c) Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South Eastern Railway & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11364/2018) decided on 27.11.2018, reported in AIR 2019 SC 24.
d) Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2004) 2 SCC
105.
e) Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627."
The applicant states that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is no doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he is selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But, at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. The courts would normally not question the justification 8 OA No. 677/2017 but the justification must be reasonable and should not be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. The applicant further states that the present case is squarely covered by the said cases and, thus, the O.A. deserves to be allowed. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2634/2013) decided on 20th March, 2013, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that ".... the rules of the game...the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced".
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings minutely including the written submissions as well as judgments relied upon by the applicant.
6. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that the applicant had applied for the post of Pilot Plant Assistant in Pay Band Rs. 5200-20200 + GP Rs. 2400/- under ST category in pursuance of 9 OA No. 677/2017 Advertisement No. 1/2013 dated 27th May, 2013 as he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria as required as per the said advertisement. He was called for test/interview before the Selection Committee held on 30.07.2015, which recommended his name for appointment on the post of Pilot Plant Assistant in Indian Bureau of Mines against one vacancy reserved for ST category. In spite of the recommendation, since he did not receive any communication, he made an application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information. The respondents issued an order No. 90 dated 16.05.2016 cancelling the advertisement No. 1/2013 for filling up the post of Pilot Plant Assistant under ST category on administrative reasons. The applicant received the said order dated 16.05.2016 in reply to his RTI application, through letter dated 01.06.2017. Thus, the applicant was aggrieved that despite being recommended by the Selection Committee, he was not appointed on the said post and the respondents, on the other hand, cancelled the recruitment process vide order dated 16.05.2016, which was highly unjust and arbitrary. Applicant then approached the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20144/2017, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate 10 OA No. 677/2017 proceedings in a competent court vide order dated 29.11.2017 and then he has filed the present Original Application.
7. The respondents, on the other hand, state that the applicant has no indefeasible right for appointment as mere selection does not confer a right upon the applicant. It is the prerogative and domain of the employer to cancel the advertisement/selection if the same is not in accordance with the rules/norms. The applicant has failed to establish any legal right which has been infringed. In fact, the direct recruitment procedure was adopted under 'failing which clause' due to non-availability of eligible ST candidate in the feeder grade for promotion to the post of Pilot Plant Assistant which is required to be made through non- selection method. This procedure of diversion of ST point was in contradiction with the reservation orders of the DOPT. In terms of para 6.16 of the DOPT O.M. No. AB-14017/30/897 Estt.(RR) dated 10th July 1990 rotation of reserve point is applicable where there exists separate quota meant for promotion as well as direct recruitment. Thus, as per the respondents there is no violation of rules or procedure and O.A. filed by applicant has no merits.
11OA No. 677/2017
8. We have observed that, in the present case, for the post of Pilot Plant Assistant, no specific quota was prescribed in the Reservation Roster / Recruitment Rules and, hence, recruitment initiated by the respondents for ST category under 'failing which clause' was in violation of the procedure of Govt. of India. The direct recruitment procedure was adopted under 'failing which clause' due to non-availability of eligible ST candidate in the feeder grade for promotion to the post of Pilot Plant Assistant which is required to be made through non-selection method. The procedure of diversion of ST point was in contradiction of para 6.16 of DOPT OM dated 10th July 1990. The rotation of reserve point is applicable when there exists separate quota meant for promotion as well as direct recruitment. In the present case, no such specific quota was prescribed in Reservation Roster / Recruitment Rules for the post of Pilot Plant Assistant and, hence, the recruitment initiated under 'failing which clause' was in violation of rules. As such, the entire recruitment process was cancelled once the said flaw came to the notice of the competent authority vide order dated 16.05.2016 by putting it on official website. When the said mistake was rectified by the respondents, the applicant cannot claim any right on 12 OA No. 677/2017 the said post as mere selection to the post does not give him any right to be appointed. Thus, it is clear that the recruitment process for the post of Pilot Plant Assistant was cancelled due to administrative reasons. Merely due to completion of selection procedure or recommendation of name by Selection Committee, the Department is not under any contractual obligation to provide employment to the selected candidate as the same does not violate principles of natural justice.
9. We do not find any of the grounds raised by the applicant as sustainable be it that the action of the respondents is arbitrary or unjustified or against the mandatory provisions of rules and policy or that principles of natural justice are violated or that the applicant though found eligible was not selected or that instead of completing the selection process, the respondents have cancelled the advertisement and test/interview without giving any specific reasons cannot be accepted as the respondents are justified in cancelling the selection process as in the present case no specific quota was prescribed in the Reservation Roster / Recruitment Rules for the post of Pilot Plant Assistant as the recruitment initiated under 'failing which clause' was in violation of rules and procedure 13 OA No. 677/2017 of diversion of ST point was in contradiction of para 6.16 of DOPT OM dated 10th July 1990.
10. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the applicant, the sum and substance of all these judgments is that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But, at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. We are in agreement with all these judgments relied upon by the applicant. On the other hand, we do not agree with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), relied upon by the applicant, because in the present matter, there is no question of any rules of game being changed. But from the judgments relied upon by the applicant, it is clear that in present matter, there are justifiable reasons given by the respondents for cancelling the recruitments conducted pertaining to the post in question and, thus, action of the respondents cannot be faulted.
14OA No. 677/2017
11. The law is well settled that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment, but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the State to act fair. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. The Courts certainly have the power and authority to consider the efficacy and sufficiency of the grounds and material in the wake of which an order of cancellation came into being. Thus, we find that the selection process is not sacrosanct. It can be cancelled, scrapped or annulled if there is a concrete and reliable evidence or there is violation of fundamental procedural requirements. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 8613 of 1983) decided on 30th April 1991, reported in 1991 SCC (L&S) 800, has observed that the decision to depart from the confirmed policy was taken after a consideration by the authorities of the position in regard to unavailability of qualified candidates from year to year adversely affecting the desired strength of the reserved candidates in the services and cannot be condemned on the grounds of arbitrariness and illegal discrimination. The same view has been taken 15 OA No. 677/2017 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. S.S. Uppal and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1492 of 1996) decided on 9th January 1996, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 168. We find that in the present case the respondents are justified in their stand for cancelling the recruitment process and, therefore, do not find their action to be unjust, illegal or arbitrary of in violation of principles of natural justice.
12. In view of the discussions and observations made herein-above, there requires no interference by this Tribunal in the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 as well as in the impugned letter dated 01.06.2017. Thus, the Original Application being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/