Amrendra Pandy vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the prayer for direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment as per recruitment against Sports Quota (talent scouting ) for the year 2012-2013.

The facts of the case is that a scheme was flouted in the name of recruitment against sports quota (talent scouting) for the purpose of selecting extra ordinary sports person for appointment in Railway. The applicant submitted application and he appeared before the selection committee held on 23.3.2013 and his certificates were also verified on the same date. It is stated that five candidates have applied but only two candidates appeared in trial. When nothing was heard from the respondents, applicant moved application under RTI. Thereafter, Assistant Sports Officer, DLW, Varanasi vide letter dated 13.1.2014 informed the applicant that trial took place on 23.3.2013 and on the same date papers were also verified but since the process of selection has not been completed within the time specified till 31.3.2013, therefore, no appointment was made pursuant to the selection. In normal course of recruitment, the interview should be held on the same date/next day but in the instant case, selection was held on 23.3.2013 but the interview has not been held in time. The delay has been occurred in finalsing the selection process is on the part of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter reply stating therein that in the instant case trial took place on 23.3.2013 but because of various administrative reasons process of selection could not be completed before schedule date i.e. till 31.3.2013, hence appointment could not be made. It is stated that as per Railway Board letter dated 31.12.2010, the quota allotted as per para 2.1 is for a financial year and unused quota shall be lapsed on the expiry of the said financial year.

Learned counsel for respondents has also filed written submissions by which he has reiterated the facts as stated in the Counter Affidavit. However, it is further stated that para 2.3 of Railway Board’s policy letter dated 31.12.2010 clearly states that the quota allotted as per para 2.1 of this letter is for a specific financial and unused quota shall be lapsed on the expiry of the said financial year. In para 2.4 of the aforesaid policy, it is stated that final approval of the competent authority in all cases of recruitment against sports quota is to be obtained by 31st March of the given financial year. It is further stated that some time process of recruitment in sports, cultural and scout quota may not be completed in a given financial year due to various administrative reasons, like complaint by other persons, vigilance cases etc. It is further stated that validity of trial is only for one month. No written submission has been filed by the learned counsel for applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that information supplied by the respondents for non-selection of the applicant is totally misconceived because no order has been issued by the respondents informing the applicant about non-finalization of selection. It is further submitted that outer limit of selection was 31.3.2013 whereas trial took place on 23.3.2013 and the certificates were also verified on the same date, if any delay has been occurred, that is on the part of the respondents. The trial must have completed within the time prescribed but the respondents have not taken interview in time. It is also submitted that due to fault of the respondents, applicant should not suffer. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case law:-

i) R.S. Mittal Vs. UOI 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 230

Learned counsel for respondents argued that due to some administrative reasons process of selection could not be completed before schedule date i.e. till 31.3.2013, hence appointment could not be made. It is stated that as per Railway Board letter dated 31.12.2010, the quota allotted as per para 2.1 is for a financial year and unused quota shall be lapsed on the expiry of the said financial year.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record.

It is admitted fact that applicant appeared in the trial on 23.3.2013 and on the same day certificates of the applicant were also verified. The selection should be completed before the financial year i.e. upto 31.3.2013 but due to some administrative reasons, interview could not take place in time. No result has been declared by the respondents. When applicant moved application under RTI, then it was informed vide letter dated 9.1.2014 that in the trial, three candidates were absent and two candidates have participated and they cleared but since the selection process could not be completed within the prescribed period, hence appointment order could not be issued to anyone.

In the case of R.S. Mittal Vs. UOI (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

“12. It is no doubt correct that a person on the select- panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select-panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select-panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgod within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified.

On the facts of this case, it is not necessary for us to go into the question o applicability of various instructions relied upon by the Tribunal. Even if there are any instructions which provide that a select-panel shall remain operative for one and a half year, the said period in our vie is sufficient for the Central Government to exhaust the select-panel of the type with which we are concerned in this case. We have already indicated the time-bound pro- cedure to be followed in dealing with the select-panel of this type.

Sri Murgod who was at No. 1 of the select-panel did not accept the appointment. Sri S.P. Singh Chaudhary has already withdrawn his appeal and he is out of run. We arc not sure about the stand of the person who is at No.3 of the select-panel. Under the circumstances it would not be appropriate to issue any direction at this point of time in favour of the appellant who is at No.4 of the select-panel.

While reversing the findings given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, to the extent indicated above, we dismiss this appeal. In the circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent, Central Government, to pay cost of these proceedings to the appellant, which we quantify as Rs. 30,000/-“

In the case of R.S. Mittal Vs. UOI (supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. But in the instant case, applicant participated only in trial and interview could not take place and since the selection process could not be completed in the prescribed period, appointment could not be given to any candidate. Meaning thereby, the applicant was not a selected candidate only he succeeded in trial. Hence the case laws relied upon by the applicant will not support the case of the applicant.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 has been pleased to observe that “Candidate including in the merit list has no indefeasible right to be appointed even if the vacancy exists.”

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, since in the instant case selection could not be completed in the prescribed period, no select list was prepared, hence applicant has no indefeasible right to be appointed, O.A. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs in this O.As are also stand disposed off.