Disposed

T K Balaji v. Union of India

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2021WP/7753/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Labour Ministry to reconsider the recruitment process and redo the select list for Labour Enforcement Officers. This was due to the Supreme Court's clarification on qualifying papers and a pending CAT order regarding reservation limits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to reconsider petitioner's case and redo the select list in terms of High Court of Gujarat judgment confirmed by Supreme Court and CAT Mumbai Bench order.

T K Balaji Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.7753/2015 (S CAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

T.K. BALAJI S/O SRI. T.K.KANNAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.407 GOKUL LATE VIEW APARTMENTS NO.1902, 2^ND A MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 6^TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 070. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR H., ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

UNION OF INDIA REP. HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND ENFORCEMENT SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶13

CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND ENFORCEMENT SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶14

T. SRINIVAS LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (C)

¶15

¶16

NO.2773/4B, II FLOOR OPPOSITE TO HDMC PARK NEAR BHAVANI NAGAR LAST BUS STOP BHAVANI NAGAR HUBLI – 560 023.

¶17

SABINAY DAS LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (C) NO.19/1, APCARGARDEN ASANSOL, WEST BENGAL – 713 304. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT, ASGI FOR R1 AND R2. SRI. R. NARAYANA, ADV. FOR R3.

¶19

VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2016, R4 IS SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF O.A.NO.851/2012 (ANNEXURE-V) ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2014 PASSED IN O.A.NO.851 OF 2012 (ANNEXURE-V) BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BY ISSUING WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶24

07.02.2014 passed in O.A.No.851/2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, mainly on two grounds.

¶25

¶26

As per the notification dated 01.09.2011,

¶27

applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up 12 vacancies available in the posts of Labour Enforcement Officer (LEO) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), 2011, as per the recruitment rules prescribed. That, the petitioner herein was qualified through the LDCE 2011, whereby the reservation fixed for Scheduled Caste was 2, Scheduled Tribe - 1 and un-reserved posts - 9.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that, Question paper 2 in General English and Precis Writing would be only a qualifying paper. Those who fail to qualify this paper with a minimum of 35% of marks, shall not figure in the merit list. Thus, question paper No.2 is not a paper to be reckoned for preparation of the merit list. On this ground, the appointment of respondent No.3 has been challenged, wherein the

¶29

¶30

marks secured by the respondent No.3 in paper No.2

¶31

was considered for the preparation of the merit list.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit

¶33

that, the challenge made in respect of the appointment of respondent No.3 is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.17167/2016 dated 0506/09/2018, whereby, the Hon’ble Court has held that, marks obtained in question paper No.2 is only a qualifying paper, being qualifying marks, the same would not be reckoned for the purpose of preparing the select list; the department has erroneously included the marks secured by the candidate in the second paper also for the purpose of preparing the select list. It is submitted that the said order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as per the order dated 22.10.2018 passed in S.L.P.No.26462/2018. Thus it is submitted that the

¶34

¶35

select list prepared considering the marks obtained in the question paper No.2 English Language and Precis Writing, on the basis of which, respondent No.3 was placed at Sl.No.9, deserves to be modified considering the ranking of the petitioner at Sl.No.10.

¶36

Secondly, petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that one Mr.S.K Agarwal, who was at Sl.No.15 in the final list, had challenged the recruitment in excess of the permissible limit of the post in respect of Scheduled Caste candidates. It is further submitted that, the appointment of respondent No.4 is also not in accordance with law, since one Sri. S.K.Agarwal, who was at Sl.No.15 had filed O.A.No.2131/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, wherein the Tribunal has directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prepare select list in accordance with the rulings of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and

¶37

¶38

promote strictly on the basis of seniority and merit, without regard to reservations in accordance with law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court adopting the catchup rule enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.K. Pavitra’s case.

¶39

In compliance with the said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench camp at Nagpur, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued office order No.23/2019 dated 13.03.2019, whereby, one Sri. S.K.Agarwal, the applicant in O.A.No.2131/2012 before the Hon’ble CAT, Mumbai Bench, has been promoted to the post of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and posted to Chandrapur.

¶40

It is submitted that, respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶41

have ignored the ranking of the petitioner who was at Sl.No.11 in the final select list which was the subject matter before the CAT, Mumbai Bench and the

¶42

¶43

applicant therein S.K.Agarwal was at Sl.No.15. Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioner submits that, case of the petitioner requires to be considered in the light of the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 with respect to Sri. S.K.Agarwal, who was at Sl.No.15.

¶44

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶45

As regards the first point inasmuch as

¶46

considering the marks of question paper No.2 i.e., English Language and Precis Writing for reckoning the merit list, the said issue is no more res integra, in view of the same having reached finality with order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) NO.26462/2018 whereby the order of the High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.17167/2016 dated 05-06/09/2018 has been confirmed. Hence the case of the petitioner is to be reconsidered in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. As

¶47

¶48

regards the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4, who was a Scheduled Caste candidate and the challenge made by one Sri. S.K.Agarwal regarding appointment of the said Sabinay Das (Respondent No.4 herein) and the order passed by CAT, Mumbai Bench camp at Nagpur in O.A.No.2131/2012 dated 30.11.2018 and the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 13.03.2019 in office order No.23/2019, the matter requires re-consideration by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶49

Accordingly, we direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and redo the select list in terms of the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No.17167/2016 dated 05-06/09/2018 confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra and the order passed by the CAT, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, in O.A.No.2131/2012.

¶50

¶51

Ordered accordingly.

¶52

Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.

¶53

Compliance shall be made in an expeditious

¶54

manner.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56