Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12771
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member, Mr. K. Haripal, Judicial Member
Vinoj M – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Engineer Southern Commamd Pune – Respondent
O.A./848/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Madhusoodhanan, Mr. Binoy Krishna P.M.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.N. Manmadan, SCGSC
Recruitment processes must comply with established procedures, and claims of unfair practices require substantial evidence to warrant judicial intervention.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment process - Employee Selection - The applicant applied for a Supervisor position but was not selected due to not meeting cut-off marks. The selection process was claimed to be vitiated by malafide and illegalities. The tribunal found no violations in recruitment process and upheld the cut-off. (Paras 16, 9, 3 and 14)
(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - The applicant sought information regarding marks through RTI which was provided accurately. Claims of favoritism were unsubstantiated. (Paras 2, 6)
(C) Employment Notification and Jurisdiction - The tribunal evaluated the jurisdiction concerning where the application was submitted and confirmed its authority to hear the case. The act of conducting interviews before the abolishment of the process was found legitimate. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant did not appear in the select list for Supervisor Barrack due to not meeting the necessary cut-off marks and alleged unfair practices in the selection process.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal dismissed the application noting that all recruitment procedures were duly followed and the applicant failed to secure the required marks.
Issues: The main issues include the legitimacy of the recruitment process and the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the OA.
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal ruled that the recruitment process was compliant with regulations, and the applicant’s claims of favoritism lacked conclusive evidence.
Result: The Original Application is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recruitment procedure and relevant qualifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's grievance regarding selection process. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents' defense regarding jurisdiction and cut-off marks. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. jurisdiction of tribunals and evidence presented. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decision and rationale for dismissal. (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
ORDER
Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member The applicant had applied for the post of Supervisor Barrack Stores (SUPVR B/S) in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as General Category in Military Engineer Services (MES) in pursuance of Employment Notice No.34303/LRS-12-13/E1B(S) vide Annexure A-1. The Employment Notice specifies among other details, scheme of examination and syllabus, minimum essential educational qualification, experience in the subject field of selection and mode of selection etc.. The applicant was called for a written test, which was conducted at Air Force Station, Yelahanka, Bangalore on 14.06.2015. On the basis of marks obtained in the written test the applicant and 190 others were called for interview on 17th 18th and 19th of December 2015 (Annexure A-3). The applicant attended the interview on 17th December 2015 before Chief Engineer Chennai Zone, Island Ground, Chennai (Admit Card Annexure A-2). While so, on 16.03.2018 a panel of selected candidates in the General Category was released at MES web site, marked as Annexure A-4.
2. As the applicant, whose Role No.6401, did not figure in the Select List the applicant sought details under the RTI Act (Annexure A-5). Vide Annexure A-6 the CPIO, MES gave a reply detailing marks obtained by him in written exam and against qualification, experience and in interview and cut off marks for unreserved category candidates and vacancies. Since the details of marks in respect of other candidates in general category selected for appointment were not furnished, the applicant again sought the information under RTI Act from the Chief Engineer, Chennai Zone (Annexure A-7). As no reply was forthcoming the applicant submitted first appeal dated 17.05.2018 marked as Annexure A-8. The Appellate Authority, Headquarters Chief Engineer Southern Command, Pune passed a speaking Order No.6 of 2018 (Annexure A-9) stating that the requisite information has already been supplied to the applicant, information asked at para 1(f) relates to third party and hence cannot be provided and to tender Rs.140/- for information at 2(g) (copy of answer sheets). The applicant further challenged in Second Appeal dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure A-10). The Chief Engineer, Chennai Zone vide letter dated 30 July, 2018 (Annexure A-11) provided the answer sheet of the applicant.
3. The applicant has produced the recruitment rules dated 27.10.1989 for the post of Supervisor, Barrack/Stores Grade-II (Annexure A-12) according to which it is a Group C, Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial and non-industrial, non-selection post for which no interview has been prescribed. The applicant has further submitted that as per the government policy the Hon'ble PM in monthly radio address “Mann ki baat' announced that interview process for non-gazetted posts will be abolished from January 1, 2016. To buttress the point the applicant has produced OM dated 14 December 2015 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises regarding discontinuation of interview for recruitment to non-executive posts in CPSEs. The applicant contends that the entire selection is vitiated by malafides and malice in law, favouritism and arbitrariness and therefore liable to be interfered.
4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents the applicant filed the original application seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) declare that the non-inclusion of the applicant among the selected candidates at Annexure A-4 and A-6 are bad in law (b) Set aside the select list at Annexure A-4 only in so far it does not include the applicant among the selected candidat
