Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Since the number of vacancies increased from 330 to 917, the respondents decided to form panels for the categories of Khalasis, Vendors, Mali, Peon, Gangman and Sanitary Cleaners and thus they formed panels of these six categories as per rules as below:

Khalasis         Vendors         Mails         Peons         Gangman         Sanitary Cleanier         Total         1 3. The distribution of selected candidates under the general and reserved quotas wasas follows:

61. The next question is regarding the preference, if any, to be given to technically qualified candidates. Initially when the recruitmentprocess was advertised there were only 330 vacancies. Subsequently the number increased to 917. The respondents in one of the reply statements have stated that the 917 vacancies fell under the following categories.

Khalasis Vendors Mali Peons Gangmen Sanitary Cleaners Total It is incomprehensible that necessarily for all these categories technically qualified/trade tested candidates ought to be selected. We have to bear in mind the fact that minimum educational qualification prescribed was 8th standard. True there is no ceiling. Further those who are appointed as Khalasis or Gangmen have got opportunities to get promoted to skilled categories in different trades subject to suitability, but the same thing cannot be said about the peons and Sanitary Cleaners. For those posts requirement of technical quaiification has no meaning. Further in fact also it is seen that out of 917 candidates selected, 604 are said to possess technical qualifications such as diploma or apprenticeship course completion, I.T.I Certificate, etc. only 313 are not technically qualified. Even among 313 not technically qualified, only 69 were candidates below 10th standard. Educational qualifications alone are not enough to determine the merit. It is demonstrated relative fitness to meet a particular assignment which is required to be looked into and evaluated. The employer has to see so many other factors. In these circumstances, we cannot endorse the contention that necessarily all the selected candidates should possess technical qualifications. Suffice to say that to the extent possible they have been given preference within the parameters.

67. There are one or two miscellaneous points. The learned counsel Mr. Peter Francis raised a contention that the minimum qualification to recruitment being 8th standard, Graduates should not have been selected. A few among the selected candidates are stated to be graduates. Selection of a few graduates cannot be faulted on the ground that they are qualified more than the minimum standard prescribed. The contention is devoid of merit. Another contention raised by the counsel Mr. Peter Francis was that the wards and dependents of retiring employees should have been given preference in the selection. This contention again is devoid of merit. Posts in ICF are not hereditary. We cannot subscribe to the view that only wards and dependents of serving employees or employees who are about 10 retire or retired employees should be selected or for that matter should be given any special preference in the matter of selection. They have to compete with other candidates subject to merit. It cannot be denied that the object of any process of selection is to secure the best and the most suitable persons for the job within the provisions of law and rules. The learned counsel Mr. Isaiah raised a question that the employment exchanges were not notified about the increase in vacancies. No doubt the first notification regarding 330 vacancies said that the vacancies were subject to variation but to say that addition of 587 vacancies is a normal variation is not correct. We are of the view that the additional vacancies should have been notified.

72. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 57 to 60 we find that the spread of marks under the four heads for the viva voce test and the total absence of any norms or guidelines for awarding marks under the first two heads which carried 80% of the marks led to wide disparities in the awarding of marks to the candidates by the selection committees and distorted the selection. The committee of officials found instances of wrong assessment even under the heads 3 and 4 leading to incorrect selection. In the original notification dated 7.9.95 only 330 vacancies were advertised and the employment exchanges concerned were accordingly notified. Though the vacancies vastly increased from 330 to 917, no fresh notification was issued for the additional 587 vacancies, nor the employment exchanges were notified about these additional 587 vacancies, for sponsoring candidates. The selection of candidates for the additional 587 vacancies which was done without any fresh notification is bad in the eye of law. Also the statutory quota of 3% reservation for physically handicapped candidates has not been complied with. For these special reasons also the selections have to be quashed irrespective of the validity of the notification dated 7.9.95.