Writ petition by Staff Selection Commission challenging Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench order directing them to re-allocate candidate to alternative posts due to disqualification for one specific post. Bench dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.2582 of 2021
Coram: Shri S.K. Mishra,J.
And
Miss Savitri Ratho,J.
W.P.(C) No.2582 of 2021
SSC, Eastern Region, Kolkata … Petitioner
vs.
Susanta Kumar Patra & others … Opp. Parties
For Petitioner … Mr. P.K. Padhi Advocate
For Opp. Parties … None
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In this writ petition, the Staff Selection Commission assails the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 21.10.2019 in O.A. No.636 of 2013
2
allowing the application of the opposite party no.1 and giving direction to the respondents in the O.A. to consider his representation dated 04.02.2013 as per law by ignoring the applicant’s option for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II and consider him for another post opted by him in preferences in accordance with merit as per the rules and communicate the decision to the applicant through a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 21.10.2019.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.1 does not have the requisite qualification to be appointed.
The chronological events and different important dates can be enumerated as follows:
I. 19.03.2011 : The present petitioner published a notice in the employment news for combined Graduate Level examination2011 for recruitment to different posts.
II. 29.03.2011 : The opposite party no.1-applicant submitted his application through online pursuant to the said notice.
III. 26.06.2011 : The applicant appeared in the TIER-I written examination.
IV. 3/4.09.2011 : He appeared in the TIER-II written examination.
V. 07.10.2011 : Call letter was issued to the applicant to attend the interview and verification of certificates.
3
VI. 16.11.2011 : The applicant attended the interview and his educational certificates were verified.
VII. 05.07.2012 : Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation issued a letter in favour of the applicant for his willingness for appointment to the said post.
VIII. 19.11.2012 : He submitted a representation to the opposite party no.2 stating that he has not studied statistics as a subject at Graduation level.
IX. 14.01.2013 : The dossier of the applicant was returned to the office of the opposite party no.2 by the present petitioner.
X. 29.01.2013 : The petitioner issued an office memorandum in favour of the opposite party no.2 directing him to produce the certificate to the effect that the applicant has studied statistics as a subject at Degree Level.
XI. 04.02.2013 : The applicant submitted a representation to the petitioner with a request to re-allocate him to any other post as per his rank and eligibility.
XII. 15.03.2013 : The petitioner rejected the candidature of the applicant.
XII. 20.08.2013 : The applicant filed O.A. No.568/2013, which was disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to file better application.
XIII. 30.08.2013 : The applicant filed O.A. No.636/2013 with a prayer to quash the office memorandum, dated 15.03.2013 as at Annexure-A/11 to the O.A. and thereby direct the present
4
petitioner to recommend the name of the applicant for appointment of any other posts other than the Statistical Investigator Grade-II under Combined Graduate Level Examination-2011 as per his eligibility, rank and preference given by applicant within a stipulated period as may be prescribed by the Tribunal.
The matter came before the Tribunal, it considered the case of the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed by the SCC, Eastern Region and passed the order impugned.
Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined impugned order, it is found that the applicant has never furnished any wrong information. In fact, he has applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2011. His application was accepted by the SSC and then he appeared TIER-I and TIER-II examinations. Call letter was issued to attend the interview/personality test and produce of documents in support of his educational/technical/profession qualification. His educational certificates were verified. The only problem with the applicant was that in the preference he has given one preference i.e. Statistical Investigator among other preference, for which he need to have subject of Statistical in Graduation, which he did not have. However, he was qualified for the other two preferences.
The Tribunal took into consideration three grounds while allowing application of opposite party no.1 and rejecting the defence plea set up by the SCC, Eastern Regions. The reasons for rejection of the defence plea are as follows:
5
The opposite parties cannot take advantage of their own error. When they accepted his application wherein preferences were given, they could have rejected. They had offered the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II and he was not having qualified for same, but he was having qualified for the other two posts he had given. Secondly, there is no provision in the rules guiding selection and recruitment of the Railway employees or any stipulation in the advertisement that candidature can be cancelled on the ground that has been reflected in the impugned notice dated 15.03.2013. It is further seen that the applicant could have been selected for any of the two other posts, he opted in his application. However, the petitioner-authorities did not scrutinize his application at the time of calling him for production of the documents regarding educational qualification. If the authorities have acted in bonafide manner, they could have easily found out that the candidate was not having the qualification to be appointed as Statistical Investigator Grade-II. But, he is eligible for the other two posts he had given in his preferences. It was necessary on the part of the SSC to declare the applicant ineligible for the Statistical Investigator Grade-II and he should have been given an opportunity to choice any one of the other two posts he has opted for. Since he is qualified for the other posts he has given preferences, his application cannot be rejected and he cannot be denied the employment.
In view of the fact that petitioner failed to identify that the applicant was not eligible for the post of Statistical Investigator at the threshold and taking into circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order passed by the
6
Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or impropriety in exercise of jurisdiction. The order passed by the Tribunal appears to be correct and just.
We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 are continuing, the learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by Sri P.K. Padhi, Advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15.04.2021.
(Savitri Ratho) Judge
pcd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order directing the petitioners to reconsider the candidate's eligibility for alternative posts is correct.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the Tribunal's interpretation of recruitment rules regarding alternative post allocation.
SSC, Eastern Region, Kolkata
Susanta Kumar Patra
S.K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
