Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10954
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Mohd. Sagir – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.390 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Qazi Vakil Ahmad
For the Respondents: Shri Arvind Singh
Participants in recruitment processes cannot challenge outcomes post participation; courts cannot impose methods of recruitment.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Challenge to selection process for Fire Engine Driver post - Applicant contended that selection of the candidate was unfair, despite performing better in skill test - Court emphasized the legality of selection process based on merit in written examination and skill test results. (Para 10)
(B) Recruitment process - Participation in the selection process restricts ability to challenge its validity later - Applicants cannot question the established procedures without prior objections - Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the employer regarding qualifications and selection methods. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, having applied under OBC for the Fire Engine Driver post, was unsuccessful in selection despite claiming superior performance in skill tests. The selection was based on merit where the applicant scored lower than the selected candidate.
Findings of Court:
The selection was justified based on performance in the written examination, with no marks allocated for the skill test.
Issues: The rights of the applicants to challenge the recruitment process after participation and the discretion of employer in setting selection criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that participants in a selection process are barred from questioning it after completing it without objections, and that courts cannot dictate recruitment procedures.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks appointment after challenging recruitment. (Para 2 , 3) |
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri S.M. Ali, holding brief of Shri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. To quash the select list dated Nil (Annexure-1)
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents establishment to finalize the selection as per Rule and award the mark of skill test of driving conducted on 07.02.2011 and appoint the applicant to the post of Fire Engine Driver under the OBC Category with all consequential benefits.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the applicant as narrated in Original Application is that an Advertisement was floated by the respondents on 30.01.2010 for filling up the post of Fire Engine Driver. The applicant being eligible applied for the said post under ‘Other Backward category’ (OBC). Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the written examination and qualified in the said exam. Thereafter, all the candidates, who qualified in the written test, was called for skill test of driving. The applicant along with other candidates appeared in the skill test, wherein as per the applicant, none of the candidate, except the applicant could drive the vehicle provided for the skill test, but the respondents have selected one candidate namely Sandeep Kumar-respondent-6.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
3.1 Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant represented on 08.02.2011 before the Chairman/Director General, Ordnance Factor Board, Kolkata, but no heed was paid. Hence, the applicant approached before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition being Writ A No.12186/2011, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2011 on the ground of alternative remedy available to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant approached this Tribunal, by way of this Original Application.
4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 02.09.2011 from the side of official respondents, wherein it has been stated that in view of the advertisement, separate confidential Boards of Officers were nominated for conducting the tests/examination. Physical Measurement test was conducted on 01.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Dr. A.S. Mondal, Principal Medical Officer (SG). Endurance test was conducted on 02.02.2011 to 03.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Shri G.C. Aron, Joint General Manager, Written Test was conducted on 04.02.2011 and Skill Test was conducted on 07.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Shri M.Z. Sarwar, Joint General Manager. Evaluation of answer sheets of the written examination was done under the Chairmanship of Shri P.K.
Mahapatra, Joint General Manager.
4.1 52 candidates were called for the different tests for Fire Engine Driver ‘A’ and out of which only 13 candidates had reported for examination and one candidate was found not fit in the physical measurement test due to less weight. In the Endurance Test, out of 12 candidates, three candidates were not qualified. Thereafter, written test was conducted on 04.02.2011, wherein all the nine candidates appeared including the applicant and the applicant had obtained only 24 marks, whereas the respondent-6 obtained 32 marks and other candidates namely Barendra Pal, Shri Chand Babu, Shri Tara Chand and Shri Dinesh PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Pal Singh secured 29 marks, 23 marks, 20 marks and 16 marks respectively.
4.2 In the call letters, it was clearly mentioned that ‘the skill test on driving would be the same/similar to the test as are being conducted by the RTOs for giving Driving Licence and number of candidates will be called for the
