AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.V. Eapen, Member A
The applicant in the O.A is a B.Com graduate with a Heavy Vehicle Driving (HVD) Licence. He claims to have sufficient experience as a HVD Driver and also possesses a Public Service Badge. His prayers for relief in the O.A are as follows :
Declare that the applicant is entitled to be appointed from Annexure A-4 selection list to the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver Post No.2 for the vacancy available at 4th respondent.
Direct the 4th respondent to issue necessary appointment order to the petitioner to fill up the vacancy as notified from the Annexure A-4 selection list.
Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) through the ISRO Centralized Recruitment Board, which is the recruitment agency of the ISRO (ICRB), had issued an advertisement on 08.08.2017 by way of a notice for recruitment of various categories of Drivers such as Heavy Vehicle Drivers (HVD), Light Vehicle Drivers (LVD) and Staff Car Drivers (SCD) in different zones. As per the notice, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure A-1, the requirement of Heavy Vehicle Drivers-A (HVD-A Post No.2) in the Thiruvanthapuram Zone was shown as 60, of which, 38 were shown in the unreserved (UR) category to which the applicant belongs. At paragraph 3 of the notice it was also indicated that the candidates may apply for different posts under the same or different zones, but cannot apply for the same post in different zones. This meant that a candidate could apply for the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver in one zone but not for the same post of Heavy Vehicle Driver in another zone. However, he could apply for the post of Light Vehicle Driver in the second zone. The last date for registering the online applications was indicated as 28.08.2017.
The applicant submitted an application for the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver-A for the Thiruvananthapuram Zone. A written test was conducted on 26.11.2017. The applicant passed the written test and was intimated to appear for the skill test which was held on 20.06.2018. The respondents then published a list of selected candidates for posts of Light Vehicle Drivers (LVD) and Heavy Vehicle Drivers (HVD) for the zones, including the Thiruvananthapuram Zone. This list for Thiruvananthapuram Zone has been produced at Annexure A-4 in the O.A. As per this list published on 22.02.2019 containing the selection results for the posts of Light Vehicle Driver-A and Heavy Vehicle Driver-A, it is seen that against the Post No.2 of Heavy Vehicle Driver-A in the unreserved panel there is a list of 16 names shown in the panel for the Thiruvananthapuram Zone. Further in addition to the 16 names shown in the said panel, another long list of as many as 40 names are shown in the waiting list. It has not been indicated either in the reply statements or during any other clarification later as to why against the advertised vacancies of as many as 60 Heavy Vehicle Driver posts in the Thiruvananthapuram Zone with 38 of them being unreserved only 16 names were in the select list and as many as 40 names in the waiting list.
Whatever be the reasons for the above, the applicant points out that he had been placed at Sl.No.5 in the waiting list for the Heavy Vehicle Driver-A Unreserved (UR) panel Post No.2 in the document produced at Annexure A-4. He submits that some of the applicants in the main list were not appointed and there were some vacancies which resulted in candidates from the waiting list upto Sl.No.4 being appointed. According to him the next person who could have been appointed from the list is himself. He submits that there was a vacancy under the Thiruvananthapuram Zone at the location of the Respondent No.4, which is the ISRO Propulsion Complex, Mahendragiri, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu (IPRC). He should, therefore, have been issued with an appointment order. It is also submitted that the validity of the list was originally to expire within one year (as had been indicated in Annexure A-4) from the date of publication of the list, i.e., it was to be valid only upto 21.08.2020. However, the validity was extended for another six months and he was informed that the list was expiring on 21.08.2020.
It is the case of the applicant that despite the availability of vacancies at the IPRC, Mahendragiri (4th respondent), appointment orders were not issued to him for one or the other reasons. Since the list was about to lapse on 21.08.2020 the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.180/369/2020. That matter was heard by this Tribunal and vide the orders at Annexure A-5 dated 14.08.2020 when the matter first came up for consideration, it was ordered that after considering the submission of the applicant's counsel in view of the limited submissions made the applicant could file a comprehensive representation immediately with his claim to the Respondents Nos.3 & 4 therein. These two respondents are the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram and the IPRC, Mahendragiri in this present O.A. The said respondents 3 & 4 in O.A.No.180/369/2020 were directed to dispose of the representation from the applicant within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the same from him. It was also ordered that the vacancy would not be filled up if there was one in existence. Immediately after this order dated 14.08.2020 was passed (produced as Annexure A-5 in this O.A.) the applicant made two representations viz., to the Administrative Officer (VSSC), Trivandrum (produced at Annexure A-6 in this O.A) and to the Senior Administrative Officer, IPRC, Mahendragiri, Tamil Nadu (produced at Annexure A-7 in this O.A)
The applicant has submitted that there was a response to the Annexure A-7 representation above addressed to the IPRC, by way of the letter dated 17.08.2020 (written before the expiry of the said select/waiting list) produced at Annexure A-10. It only made the following point - “In this regard, it is to inform that IPRC, Mahendragiri has not conducted any HVD test in Trivandrum Zone. You are, therefore, advised to contact ICRB, ISRO HQs for submitting any further representation on this matter.” It is the applicant's contention that the representations given by him were vaguely rejected by the letter dated 17.08.2020, which only states that the IPRC has not conducted any test and they were not aware about anything. He has submitted more details relating to the vacancy at IPRC in the O.A. He submits that initially the person who had appeared at Sl.No.11 in the unreserved panel for HVD-A in the Annexure A-4 selection results, namely one Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham, had been selected for the post of HVD-A in the IPRC vide the letter dated 19.03.2019 of the VSSC Trivandrum addressed to the IPRC, Mahendragiri produced at Annexure A-8. However the said Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham failed in the Character and Antecedents (C&A) Verification. The 4th respondent, IPRC, had requested the candidate to submit an explanation before 31.10.2019 as per their letter dated 14.10.2019 addressed to him produced at Annexure A-9. The letter indicated that Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham's employment for the period 2011-2014 with Bejan Singh Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Nagercoil could not be verified as the Hospital had denied any appointment by this name during the said period, whereas, he had not mentioned any details pertaining to the said employment in Column 11 of the Attestation Form. Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham was advised to submit his explanations in respect of suppression of facts relating to the employment at M/s.Bejan Singh Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Nagercoil during 2011-2014 in the Attestation Form submitted to IPRC along with the reasons for the above remarks denying his appointment during the said period by the said Hospital along with supporting documents, if any. According to the applicant in this O.A., this letter dated 14.10.2019 at Annexure A-9 was not given any reply till 31.10.2019 the last date. From these facts it is submitted that the 4th respondent, IPRC, Mahendragiri could have started the process of scrutinizing his name for appointment immediately after 31.10.2019 as he was the next available person in the Annexure A-4 waiting list. However, no orders were received in this regard from anybody. Further, he submits that since no orders on his representation submitted to the VSSC, Trivandrum (3rd respondent) vide Annexure A-6 was also received, he sent a reminder dated 04.09.2020 produced at Annexure A-11. However, there has been no response to that either from the 3rd respondent till the date of filing of the O.A.
The applicant submits that the 4th respondent, IPRC, Mahendragiri had reported two vacancies of Heavy Vehicle Driver to the 2nd respondent ICRB, Bengaluru. It is also admitted that only one candidate was appointed against the said vacancies. From the letter at Annexure A-9 it is also clear that at least from 31.10.2019 the second vacancy could have been filled up by the next person in the Annexure A-4 waiting list, who is the applicant herein. The 3rd and 4th respondents had not taken any steps in this regard to fill the reported vacancy from the Annexure A-4 list despite the order of this Tribunal vide Annexure A-5. It is the inaction of the respondents which has given rise to the O.A. It is contended that when a select list is prepared for filling up vacancies a right is also created for appointment to a vacancy from the select list in favour of selected candidates in comparison to others. There was already a valid reported vacancy to be filled up from the select list before it was going to lapse. In addition, if the applicant was not appointed he would lose his opportunity to get an appointment, not only from the select list but also as he was getting over-aged for the next attempt. Thus, it was the duty of the respondents to fill the reported vacancies from the select list. A failure to do so amounts to depriving a legitimate expectation on part of the applicant. When specific vacancies were reported and the selection process was carried out the process has to happen with due regard to all formalities. The respondents ought to realize that they are bound to fill up all the vacancies reported during the validity of the list from the select list alone. Further, it is contended that even if the said select list may have expired later, since it was prepared for specific vacancies it remains valid for all such vacancies which were reported before the expiry of the list.
The respondents have filed a reply statement in which at the outset it is submitted that the ISRO has many centres across the country. The Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) located at Thiruvananthapuram and ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) located at Mahendragiri, Tamil Nadu are independent centres. It is submitted that the overall responsibility for carrying out the recruitment and selection to various posts, including those of Light Vehicle Drivers/Heavy Vehicle Drivers, for the centres of ISRO situated across the country in a centralized manner rests with the ISRO Centralized Recruitment Board (ICRB) located at the ISRO Headquarters in Bengaluru. As per the Annexure A-1 advertisement dated 08.08.2017 online applications were invited for 50 vacancies of Light Vehicle Driver-A (LVD-A), 76 vacancies of Heavy Vehicle Driver (HVD-A) and 2 vacancies of Staff Car Driver-A for selection on a zone wise basis and for posting to various Department of Space (DOS)/ISRO Centres/Units across the country. As far as the Thiruvananthapuram Zone was concerned, there were 19 vacancies of LVD-A and 60 vacancies of HVD-A. These vacancies were meant for the VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram, the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC) also located at Thiruvananthapuram and the ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) located at Mahendragiri, Tamil Nadu. Being the lead centre in Thiruvananthapuram Zone the VSSC had been entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the written test, skill test and the preparation of the select panel. After completion of the selection process, the Annexure A-4 selection panel was published on 22.02.2019. The applicant had been empanelled against HVD-A post (Post No.2) and placed at No.5 under the unreserved (UR) wait list panel. The selection panels were initially valid for a period of one year from 22.02.2019 to 21.02.2020. It is submitted that for the post of HVD-A, 16 candidates were empanelled in the UR merit list and 40 candidates in the UR waiting list. Out of the 16 candidates, 14 candidates were identified for VSSC and 1 candidate each for LPSC Thiruvananthapuram and IPRC Mahendragiri. All documents pertaining to the candidates in question with the selection process were then forwarded to the concerned centres for initiation of the Character and Antecedents (C&A) Verification by them.
It is submitted that some of the candidates having applied for both the posts, namely, Light Vehicle Driver-A and Heavy Vehicle Driver-A, those qualified in the selection process were placed in the appropriate select panel. Out of the 14 candidates allotted to the VSSC, 2 candidates had opted for the post of LVD-A and thus their candidature for the post of HVD-A was cancelled. Against that cancellation, 2 candidates from the waiting list at Sl.No.1 & 2 were considered. Subsequently, one of the candidates who was Sl.No.2 in the waiting list, expressed his unwillingness. Hence his candidature was also cancelled and the next candidate who was at Sl.No.3 from the waiting list was considered. As of the time of filing the reply on 15.06.2022, 13 out of the 14 posts in VSSC have been filled up. For the remaining candidate at Sl.No.3 of the waiting list the Character and Antecedents Verification is still in progress. In addition to this the candidate allotted to LPSC who was at Sl.No.2 of the merit list did not turn up and the resultant vacancy was operated from the waiting list by the candidate at Sl.No.4.
Coming to the specific issue of this case, it is submitted by the respondents that the candidate at the Select List at Sl.No.11 had been identified for IPRC, Mahendragiri (Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham). The Character and Antecedents (C&A) of the selected candidates have to be verified through the district authorities as well as through the Intelligence Bureau (IB) before they are appointed in DOS/ISRO as per procedure. Hence, the C&A Verification was initiated in the case by the IPRC. The Attestation Forms and Special Security Questionnaire in respect of the candidate (Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham) was sent to the Department of Space (DOS), Bengaluru on 01.05.2019 to take up the matter with the IB for C&A Verification. The DOS vide letter dated 30.08.2019 communicated some observations made in the C&A Verification report by the IB to the effect that the candidate's employment for the period from 2011-2014 with M/s.Bejan Singh Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Nagercoil could not be carried out as the said hospital had denied any appointment by his name during the said period. Since the experience claimed and declared could not be verified, the competent authority had decided to seek an explanation from the candidate Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham on these remarks. He was asked to submit his explanation. He had submitted an explanation vide communication dated 18.10.2019 accepting his mistake and requesting to be excused from the same. The respondents submit that the said Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham had applied for the post of Light Vehicle Driver-A (LVD-A) for the SDSC Sriharikotta (SHAR) Zone and for HVD-A for Thiruvananthapuram Zone against the advertisement. He had qualified for both the posts of LVD-A in SDSC-SHAR and HVD-A in IPRC, Mahendragiri simultaneously. However, at the time of the skill test for the post of LVD-A in SDSC SHAR, the candidate had produced an experience certificate from the M/s.Bejan Singh Eye Hospital, Nagercoil. While attending the skill test for the post of HVD-A at IPRC, Mahendragiri he had produced an experience certificate from Ahilam Travels, Nagercoil. Both the experience certificates had been submitted by the candidate to meet the experience criteria required for the said post. However, the C&A Verification for the post of LVD-A at SDSC SHAR revealed that he had submitted a fake experience certificate. The competent authority of SDSC SHAR had sought an explanation from the candidate. The candidate accepted that he had produced a fake experience certificate at the time of document verification for skill test conducted at SDSC SHAR. Taking into account this malpractice of the applicant in the selection process to secure the job his candidature was then cancelled by the SDSC SHAR as per communication dated 18.11.2019. It is submitted that the 4th respondent, IPRC Mahendragiri then sought the details pertaining to the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham for the post of LVD-A from SDSC SHAR. The same was received in IPRC vide email on 02.12.2019. As Shri.Abilash Gowtham has produced fake experience certificate in another centre of ISRO ie., SDSC SHAR, to secure the job, the competent authority in IPRC decided to cancel his candidature for the post of HVD-A at IPRC, Mahendragiri also. This decision was intimated to the candidate vide letter dated 19.02.2021.
It may be noted that while hearing oral submissions, this Tribunal enquired from learned SCGSC the reason for the long interval of time between the two dates mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph. It was clear from what was provided in the reply statement that the IPRC, Mahendragiri had received the information about the cancellation of the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham for the post of LVD-A from the SDSC SHAR on 02.12.2019. However they proceeded to officially issue their own cancellation of the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham only on 19.02.2021, which was almost one year and two months after the first receipt of this information. Since the reply statement had maintained total radio silence about what had happened during this gap, it was felt that a proper explanation was necessary in the interest of fairness and for the consideration of the relevant positions. This was particularly important because in the intervening period, the said select list/waiting list was still valid as it only expired on 21.08.2020. This meant that from the time that the first information relating to the cancellation of the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham by the SDSC SHAR because of his malpractice “was received by the IPRC on 02.12.2019” upto 21.08.2020 the last date of validity of the select/waiting list, there was a period of 8 months for which no clear explanation had been provided as to what the respondents, particularly, the IPRC Mahendragiri had been doing. When the matter was heard on 13.01.2023 by this Tribunal, the learned SCGSC Smt.O.M.Shalina, requested for some more time to obtain a clarification from the respondents. The said clarification was then given in a detailed note filed by learned SCGSC on the last date of hearing on 19.01.2023. This note provided some details regarding the action taken by the respondents during this crucial intervening period, which we will examine subsequently.
However, continuing the contentions provided in the reply statement, it is submitted that after the IPRC, Mahendragiri decided to cancel the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham on 19.02.2021, it sought details of the next wait-listed candidate from VSSC, as per its communication dated 19.02.2021. At that time it was found that the validity of the panel which had been drawn on 22.02.2019 initially valid for a period of one year upto 21.02.2020 and extended for further period of six months upto 21.08.2020 had expired. Since the validity of the select panel had expired it is submitted in the reply statement that the applicant could not be considered for the post. Further, it is submitted that as per Clause 12 of the Advertisement at Annexure A-1, the ISRO had reserved the right not to fill up any of the posts if it so desired. Since the Department of Space (DOS) has also decided to decentralize the recruitment process to the post of Driver, the IPRC has now decided to conduct a fresh recruitment to fill up the vacancy. It is also submitted that in response to the representation dated 14.08.2020 submitted by the applicant to the VSSC, the VSSC had actually given a written reply to the applicant, as per its communication dated 21.09.2020, produced along with the reply statement at Annexure R-1. In this communication dated 21.09.2020 after stating the facts of the matter, it is indicated that with respect to the candidate identified for IPRC (Merit/Select List No.11), after receipt of C&A Verification Report, the case had been referred by IPRC to the Department of Space, Bengaluru for obtaining an expert opinion regarding the suitability of candidate for employment. A reply was awaited from the DOS, Bengaluru. It is also mentioned in the communication that except for IPRC and one candidate in VSSC, there are no other offerable vacancies available with the 3rd and 4th respondents. In any case the validity of the selection panel had already expired on 21.08.2020 and the same could not be operated any more.
Providing some clue about the action taken after the candidate Shri.Abilash Gowtham had produced the false/fake experience certificate at the time of selection to the post of LVD-A at SDSC SHAR and his candidature was cancelled, the reply statement at paragraph 15 indicates that the case was referred to the Department of Space. The candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham to the post of HVD-A at IPRC, Mahendragiri was then finally cancelled by the competent authority and the decision communicated to that candidate vide letter dated 19.02.2021. However, it is indicated that the respondents could not consider the applicant in the O.A as the next wait-listed candidate because by the time the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham was cancelled the validity of the wait list panel had expired. It is contended that no fresh appointment can be made from any select list after the expiry of the validity of the said panel. It is stated in the reply statement that the Department of Space had advised the IPRC to note the remarks made by the SDSC SHAR in respect of Shri.Abilash Gowtham and to accordingly take appropriate action in the matter (action taken has been given in greater detail in the subsequent note filed by learned SCGSC). It is submitted in the reply statement that taking into cognizance the breach of his integrity, the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham had been cancelled by the Department's competent authority at IPRC, Mahendragiri, with the concurrence of Department of Space on 19.02.2021. However since the panel had expired well before the cancellation of the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham, the applicant is not entitled to claim appointment to the post of HVD-A at IPRC, Mahendragiri.
It is the position of the respondents that the contention that the 4th respondent, IPRC, Mahendragiri should have taken steps to fill up the vacancies as Shri.Abilash Gowtham had failed to submit his explanation till 31.10.2019 is not logical and not true to the facts. It is submitted that Shri.Abilash Gowtham had given his explanation. It is also the responsibility of the Department to give a reasonable opportunity to the candidate. Therefore, the details relating to the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowthan for selection to the post of LVD-A at SDSC SHAR had been sought by the 4th respondent to examine the case further. On receipt of the details the matter was taken up with the appropriate authorities for taking a final decision in the matter. Unless and otherwise a final decision on appointment of Shri.Abilash Gowtham was taken, it is not feasible to consider the case of next wait-listed candidate for appointment as it is only on the existence of a vacancy that the next candidate can be considered from the Waiting List. In this case, therefore, till the cancellation of the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham, which was communicated to the candidate on 19.02.2021, it can be seen that there was no vacancy available to consider the next candidate in the Wait List panel. When the case was finally cleared, however, the validity of the panel had expired and it was not possible to appoint the next candidate from the panel to the post.
The above explanations have been given in more detail in the statement filed by the learned SCGSC on 19.01.2023. It is indicated in this statement that earlier on 30.08.2019 itself, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Space, Bengaluru had informed the 4th respondent, IPRC Mahendragiri, regarding the negative C&A verification report in respect of Shri.Abilash Gowtham, concerning the application submitted by him at SDSC SHAR. Thereupon, the 4th respondent as per Annexure A-9 letter dated 14.10.2019 sought an explanation from Shri.Abilash Gowtham. This was replied to him by his letter dated 18.10.2019. After this, the 4th respondent again sought details of the candidature of the said Shri.Abilash Gowtham from SDSC SHAR. This was replied through email communication dated 02.12.2019, stating that his candidature had been cancelled by the competent authority. After this reply by way of the email communication from SDSC Sriharikotta on 02.12.2019 it appears that no action seems to have been taken by the IPRC, Mahendragiri to take any further steps in relation to cancellation of Shri.Abilash Gowtham's candidature. There is no explanation provided in the note of the learned SCGSC. It appears that the case was only referred by the 4th respondent, IPRC to the Department of Space, Bengaluru for concurrence for cancellation only on 26.08.2020 vide the letter at Annexure R-3 produced along with the statement over 8 months later significantly after expiry of validity of the waiting list on 21.08.2020. As per this letter, the details relating to Shri.Abilash Gowtham and Bejan Singh Eye Hospital were brought out as has been already indicated earlier. It was stated in the letter that the matter was considered by the competent authority and it was recommended not to consider the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham for the post of HVD-A at IPRC in view of the serious breach of integrity. Further, it is also mentioned in this letter addressed to the ISRO Headquarters from the IPRC that “anyway final decision may be taken by ICRB/ISRO Headquarters”.
The above letter,it is to be again noted, was sent only on 26.08.2020 by the 4th respondent, IPRC, Mahendragiri after sitting on the email received from SHAR on 02.12.2019. The earlier email had already informed the IPRC that another Centre of the same Department of Space at SHAR (which appears to be a much bigger centre than the IPRC) had already cancelled the candidature. It took, therefore, over 8 months for the next step to be taken by the IPRC within which time as has been indicated earlier the validity of the select list had expired on 21.08.2020. The only explanation provided for this delay of over 8 months is that no further action could be taken by the respondents in the said matter as the working of the offices of the respondents “were restricted due to Covid-19 pandemic since February 2020”. As far as this Tribunal is aware the working of the offices got affected due to covid only from the end of March, 2020/beginning April, 2020 onwards. The period from 02.12.2019 onwards ie., almost the whole of December, 2019, January 2020 February 2020 and upto end of March, 2020 ie., almost for four months there seems to have been no action taken on the letter received by the IPRC relating to Shri.Abilash Gowtham even if we consider the covid induced delay coming later. Hence, delay in taking up the matter has not been satisfactorily explained and it appears to have a direct negative bearing on the case of the applicant. Further, the covid pandemic may have cause some temporary dislocations but does not provide an explanation for the delay of the entire period of over 8 months.
In any case, it is also seen that once the matter was referred finally after 8 months on 26.08.2020 by the IPRC Mahendragiri, the Department of Space responded by 12.10.2020, vide letter produced at Annexure R-4. The DOS only stated that the views of IPRC to cancel the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham had been considered and concurred for the reasons stated in the letter dated 26.08.2020 and considering that the recruitment to fill up the vacancies of LVD-A and HVD-A in various ISRO centres was initiated through a common notification of ICRB. However, it was also indicated that the final decision on the matter rests with the appointing authority as prescribed for Group 'C' administrative posts in the IPRC. In effect, the matter was returned to the IPRC for taking the final decision. Even after receipt of this letter in October, 2020, the matter seems to have been processed further by the IPRC, Mahendragiri as late as 12.02.2021, as per the copy of the note sheet produced at Annexure R-5 ie., almost 4 months later. It was finally decided to cancel the candidature only at that time ie., after a further gap of 4 months. Thus, after getting the unrequired approval of the Department of Space, it still took IPRC Mahendragiri, 4 more months to cancel the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham. This was done only on 19.02.2021, vide Annexure R-6, officially intimating Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham that his candidature had been cancelled because of the submission of fake and fabricated certificates.
It should be fairly obvious to everyone from the above detailed sequence of events and circumstances that have been brought out that we do feel that there has been some of avoidable and unwarranted delay on the part of the IPRC in taking decisions. The first delay was after they had received the email communication from their sister centre at SDSC Sriharikotta on 02.12.2019. Once the SDSC Sriharikotta had decided against the particular candidate, Shri.Abilash Gowtham, on the very ground that he had submitted fake and fabricated certificates, it is not known as to why the matter had to be taken up once again with the Department of Space if the final decision on the matter rested with the Appointing Authority as prescribed for Group 'C' (Adm) posts in IPRC. It is not clear whether the SDSC Sriharikotta itself took the decision at its own end without a reference to the Department of Space or it had also referred to the Department of Space before issuing the cancellation of the candidature of Shri.Abilash Gowtham. This point is also relevant in view of the fact that the learned SCGC, in her statement of 19.01.2023, has enclosed Annexure R-2, a Office Memorandum of Department of Space dated October, 2018, that seems to indicate that due to practical problems of conducting of recruitment centrally by ICRB as it takes considerable amount of time and correspondence with various centres and setting up of question papers in vernacular languages, consolidation of vacancies etc., it had been decided to decentralize the recruitment to the posts of LVD-A and HVD-A to DOS/ISRO Centre/Units with immediate effect. This means that almost immediately after the Annexure A-1 Advertisement was published a decision had been taken to decentralize the recruitment of Drivers to the Centres. It appears in effect from this that the concerned ISRO Centre at IPRC, Mahendragiri had the full power for cancellation of the candidature or to treat the certificates in an appropriate manner once this information was known to them, instead of which it was decided to make another reference to the Department of Space.
We should also note that it could well be that, as has been noted by the Department of Space in its reply at Annexure R-4, that since the recruitment in this case had been initiated through a common notification of ICRB, that the approval of DOS was required. But it is still quite clear, as mentioned earlier from the above sequence of events, that there has been a complete unwarranted and unexplained delay in the entire process for which the only somewhat facile explanation given is that it was due to the Covid pandemic. Such an explanation really doesn't stand because, as mentioned, there were at least four months before the Covid restrictions came into effect late March/early April 2020 and to the question of what happened when such restrictions were lifted, no explanation is given.
The respondents, through the learned SCGSC, have sought to explain that from the note sheet produced at Annexure R-5 it is clear that they did try to see whether the next wait listed candidate could be considered if the panel was extended. However, it was found that even though the validity was extended upto 21.08.2020, by the time the note was written it had already expired. It has been submitted that any delay in the cancellation of appointment of Shri.Abilash Gowtham cannot be taken as deliberate or intentional because of the Covid pandemic's unprecedented restrictions. It is also submitted that it is true that while the applicant has a right to be considered for the appointment, in the instant case, the respondents have not denied the said right. The respondents had considered the candidature of the applicant and a fair opportunity was given to him in the selection process. Based on his merit he had been put in the waiting list but could not appear in the select panel. As such, the applicant cannot have a case that the selection process was bad. In this regard, it is submitted that it is also relevant that neither the Recruitment Rules nor the Recruitment Notification confer any right on the appointment of the candidates included in the select panel in the waiting list. On the contrary, it is relevant to note that as per Clause 12 of the Advertisement dated 08.08.2017 the ISRO had reserved a right not to fill up all or any of the posts if so desired.
In addition to all these above points, the respondents have cited a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to such matters. The question of whether a candidate whose name appear in the merit list on the basis of competitive exam acquires an indefeasible right of appointment as Government servant if a vacancy exists came up for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 47 where at the paragraph 7 it was held as follows :
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha & Ors. (1973) II LLJ 266 SC; Miss Neelima Shangla vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1986) 3 SCR 785 and Jitendra Kumar & Ors. vs.State of Punjab & Ors. (1985) 1 SCR 899.”
(Emphasis added)
The issue was also examined by the Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors.vs. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union, (1994) 1 SCC 126, where the judgment in Shankarsan Dash (supra) was reiterated in the following words in paragraph 10 of the judgment :
“10. It is now well settled that a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to the contrary.”
Further, in S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because of his name appears in the select list. It was held that the State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. A candidate will have no legal right for claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness in regard to the filling up of the vacancies.
The learned SCGSC submits in this matter that the applicant has no case that the action on the part of the respondents was arbitrary, discriminatory or vitiated by malafides or that he was discriminated in some manner which resulted in denial of his right. It is pointed out that by the time that Annexure R-5 decision was taken by the respondent the validity of the select list had expired. In any case, it is submitted that the applicant cannot harp on the disqualification and cancellation of the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham. Therefore the fact that the procedure of cancellation of candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham was delayed does not confer any advantage nor enure to the benefit of the applicant. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit and the O.A may be dismissed.
As we have noted earlier during the course of description of the events and circumstances, we have considered all the above matters, and we feel that there was avoidable/unwarranted delay on the part of the respondents. This, clearly of course does not give any other right to the applicant for consideration and the case law cited earlier establishes it. But at the same time in the interest of the basic principles of natural justice and fairness it is a fact that this delay if it had not taken place could have perhaps lead to a positive consideration of his candidature within the time period that was prescribed. It is trite that there is no indefeasible right established on the part of the applicant. However, there has been a delay which is totally unexplained of around four months in the matter of consideration by the IPRC once the report from the SDSC SHAR was available with them. Definitely for the period before the covid pandemic settled in, there was no proper consideration and even, after that, it was done in an half hearted manner. Further, there was further delay even when the clarification came from the Department of Space Headquarters at Bengaluru. It certainly shows that there has been an element of inefficiency in the IPRC in dealing with the whole matter. Whether this was deliberate or otherwise is not for this Tribunal to look into because we do not have all the evidence in this regard. We cannot also, as has been pressed home by the learned SCGSC, order appointment to the applicant. At the same time we can always order reconsideration of the candidature in the interest of justice and fairness. Thus, we feel that sufficient ground has been made out in the facts and circumstances for a clear reconsideration of the candidature of the applicant by the respondents at a senior level.
We, therefore, direct that in the given facts and circumstances brought out in the course of discussion earlier and the unexplained and unwarranted delay which taken place in disposal of the matter relating to the cancellation of the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham which has in turn caused a delay in the consideration of the case of the applicant in place of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham, the matter should be looked into by the Secretary, Department of Space once again. The Secretary, Department of Space may go into the matter in detail and after considering the sequence of events with dates brought out earlier first decide on whether there has been a justified or unjustified delay on the part of the IPRC, Mahendragiri in processing the matter of cancellation of the candidature of Shri.A.Abilash Gowtham, particularly, in view of the fact that decisions relating to recruitment had been decentralized. After due consideration of this aspect the Secretary, Department of Space may come to another consideration as to whether the matter of appointment of the applicant warrants a relooking into, and whether the case of the recruitment of the applicant in this O.A should therefore be once again considered in the light of any unjustified delays, if it has been so established. In this connection, we also direct that the expiry of the validity of the panel should not stand in the way of such a reconsideration in the larger interest of justice to the applicant. The fact that the applicant may have crossed the age for fresh consideration for Government employment in other Departments/fields at this stage should be also kept in mind. We are also guided by the fact that he had come to this Tribunal well within time before the expiry of the panel in filing the first O.A and we had given directions to the respondents to consider his matter properly.
The decision referred to above should be taken within a period of four months from the date of issue of this order and intimated to the applicant by the concerned authorities by way of a proper written and reasoned speaking order. We dispose of the O.A with the above directions. We make no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 2nd day of February 2023)