Amit Goyal vs The Chairman, Steel Authority Of ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 46 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement of the Steel Authority of India applied for appointment of G.S. Management Trainee (Technical). In the advertisement while the requisite, it was mentioned that even those candidates who were appearing in the final year examination were also eligible to apply. The petitioner applied for the said post of Management Trainee (Technical) in or around November, 2000 in which he mentioned that he is scheduled to appear for his final year examination of Bachelor of Engineering (for short B.E.) in 2000-2001.

2. Respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner to appear in the written test scheduled to be held on 31.12.2000 in Delhi. According to the original advertisement only those candidates who were in the final year of B.E. were eligible to apply and for being considered for appointment subject, however, to their having passed the final B.E. examination with 65% marks in aggregate at the time of appointment.

3. Thereafter respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that he should appear for an interview and for group discussion for the post of Management Trainee (Technical) with their Selection Board on 21.5.2001 in Delhi. The petitioner was selected as a Management Trainee (Technical) and had been offered initial basic pay of Rs. 11350/- per month with two advance increment in E-1 Scale. The petitioner was also informed that he was being posted to the Raw Materials Division of the Steel Plant and that he will be designated as Junior Management after successful completion of training of one year.

4. As per Clauses 5 and 6 of the offer letter, one of the prerequisite was to have passed the final year examination in the absence of which it was stated therein that "it will not be possible for us to arrange your medical examination and accept your joining". One of the said conditions contained in Clause (5(ii) required the petitioner to submit proof of passing the final year examination and reads as follows:-

"Your having passed the final examination of the course (based on which you have been considered) and securing 65% marks in aggregate of all semesters/years of equivalent thereof."

5. The petitioner had secured 76.5% marks up to VII Semester. VIIIth Semester examination was scheduled to be held in July 2001 but due to security reasons created on account of a meeting of Heads of India and Pakistan from 15th to 17th July, 2001, the examinations and project presentation were rescheduled from 6th August to 3rd September, 2001. Accordingly the petitioner appeared for the said examination during 6th August to 3rd September, 2001.

6. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 30.7.2001 to respondent No. 1 accepting the offer of said appointment and requested respondent No. 1 for extension of the date of joining since his final examination had been postponed to 6th August, 2001.

7. Respondent No. 1 was pleased to grant extension for joining the said post. The petitioner had now been asked to report to the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro (Jharkand) on 18.9.2001 for induction training commencing from 24.9.2001. The petitioner's appointment was subject to the production of original documents showing that the petitioner had qualified his B.E. final examination with the requisite percentage of marks. The petitioner submitted that he had appeared in the final semester examination held from 6.8.2001 to 3.9.2001 and the result had not till then been declared by respondent No. 4. The result was declared in October, 2001. In the final examination the petitioner had obtained 82.7% marks and 77.5% in aggregate which was beyond the requirement fixed by the respondents for the post. The petitioner submitted that had the examination been held in July as scheduled, this problem might not have arisen. Delay in submitting the original marks not sheet of the VIIIth (Final) semester was beyond the control of the petitioner and because of that the petitioner could not submit the original documents before the extended date of 18.9.2001. Despite persistent requests the petitioner was not allowed to join and he was told on 18.9.2001 by the Deputy General Manager I/C of the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro that he cannot allow the petitioner to either undergo the medical examination or join the training/duty.

8. When the petitioner did not get any relief from any quarter he ultimately rushed to this Court and preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which he alleged that the respondent's action in not allowing him to join the duty and undergo medical examination and training is contrary to the principles of equity and justice as enshrined in the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He submitted that respondent No. 4 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra failed to perform its duty in not holding the examination as scheduled and not declaring the examination's results within the reasonable time. It is also urged that the petitioner cannot be punished for any lapse of the university.

9. The petitioner also submitted that respondent No. 1, Steel Authority of India, advertised for around 250 Management Trainees (Technical) whereas they had sent offers to 361 candidates and against the advertised vacancies of around 250 posts 279 candidates were kept in employment. Letters were sent to 62 more candidates to appear for interview for joining respondent No. 1. The petitioner submitted that when the advertisement was for around 250 posts; then how could offers be sent to 361 candidates? 279 candidates were given appointments and thereafter, 62 more candidates were sent letters giving them further opportunity to submit their papers before 24.9.2001. This clearly demonstrates that there is no sanctity of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1 requiring around 250 Management Trainees. It was submitted that there was no transparency in these important public appointments by respondent No. 1. In case the vacancies advertised were for 250 Management Trainees, then only 250 candidates should have been kept. It is further stated that even after having appointed much larger number of Management Trainees, i.e. 279, offers were sent to 62 more candidates giving them further opportunity to complete their documents on or before 24.6.2001.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no sanctity of the date of 31.7.2001, because this date was extended by respondent No. 1 to 18.9.2001 on its own. If the respondent had extended it once, then it could also be extended for the second time so that the petitioner and such other candidates who had already qualified the written examination and cleared the interview would not be deprived of the jobs because their results were declared a few days late. These selected candidates, of course, cannot be blamed for the delay in announcement of the result by the universities or other institutions.

11. This Court issued show cause notice to the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner was initially advised to report to Deputy General Manager (I/C), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai on 12.8.2001 at 8.30 a.m. for verification of his documents and medical examination. Since the petitioner did not report to the Dy. General Manager (HRD), Bhilai Steel Plant, he was given another chance vide letter dated 1.9.2001 of respondent No. 2 to report in the extension batch on 18.9.2001 at 8.30 a.m. to Dy. General Manager (Training), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro along with the required documents for verification and medical examination. It was again clearly mentioned in the said letter that in case he does not report/join in the extension batch as per the schedule it would be presumed that he is not interested and the offer would be treated as withdrawn.

12. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that a Management Trainee selected in the Steel Authority of India has to undergo vigourous training for one year, consisting of both class room and on-the-job training. During this period they are continuously evaluated and only those who successfully complete the training are placed on the job as Junior Manager. This is inhouse training organized within the company in its various plants/units and forms an important input for the selected candidate to effectively function as front line Manager. It is submitted that in order to make proper arrangements for this initial one year training which all those joining as Management Trainees have to undergo, respondent No. 1 allows candidates as Management Trainees to join only in one batch. No candidate is allowed to join in between or after the extension batch has joined.

13. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that the medical examination/inducting training is conducted in a group and not for an individual. Considering the difficulties being faced by the candidates, an extension batch was formed to enable the candidates to report on 17/18.9.2001. It is also submitted in the counter affidavit that even after giving the petitioner another chance in the extension batch, his result has not been declared by 18.9.2001, the reporting date of the extension batch. Therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be possible to further extend the period of reporting/joining for the candidates who either could not report or the final year result has not yet been declared. Thus, the offer issued to the petitioner stands withdrawn vide letter dated 24.9.2001 as he was unable to produce the necessary certificate in support of fulfillling the eligibility conditions for joining even in the extension batch.

14. During the pendency of this petition, an additional affidavit was filed by L.T. Sherpa, Senior Deputy Director (Personnel & Recruitment) of respondent No. 1 in which he has mentioned that against recruitment of around 250 Management Trainees (Technical), offers of appointment were sent to 361 candidates out of that 279 Management Trainees (Technical) joined, which is more than the recruitment of 250 Management Trainees (Technical). He has indicated in the affidavit that in order to meet the requests of candidates, including the petitioner, who could not join the main batch (12.8.2001) due to various reasons whatsoever 62 candidates including the petitioner were given another opportunity to join in the extension batch (24.9.2001). Out of 62 offers issued in the extension batch, 14 candidates who are found eligible were allowed to join. After employing 279 candidates offers were again sent to 62 candidates. That shows respondent No. 1, in fact, had 341 (279+62) vacancies. It is also submitted that either respondent No. 1 has appointed more number of candidates than its requirements or actual vacancies were not reflected in the advertisement. Otherwise, how could for the requirement of around 250 candidates, respondent No. 1 could appoint much larger number of candidates.

15. It is also mentioned that the one year period of training is divided into a number of distinct phases and that the one year training programme for the extension batch started w.e.f. 24.9.2001 and the two weeks central induction training programme was already over. The candidates have already gone for the remaining part of their one year training at their respective places of postings. In view of these difficulties it is not possible to give further extension and the petitioner cannot be permitted to join.

16. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the public authorities must act fairly. In case there was a requirement of around 250 candidates, how could they send letters to 361 candidates and out of that employ 279 candidates? He further submitted that subsequently respondent No. 1 had also sent letters to 62 candidates, including the petitioner, and out of that employed 14 more candidates. In case respondent No. 1 had already employed more persons (279) than required, then where was the need for sending letters to 62 candidates asking them to join the respondent organisation? This clearly shows that neither the advertisement nor the requirement is really the guiding factor for induction of candidates. They were recruited at the whims and fancies of the respondent organisation.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no sanctity of the date which is mentioned in the advertisement because the same was extended by the respondent. One fails to understand when it was extended once then why the same can not be extended again particularly when suitable candidates have already been selected and short listed. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Ors. and the Bhupinderpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2000 SCC (L&S) 639). Their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that if cut-off date is laid down in relevant rules, it has to be followed otherwise it may be prescribed in advertisement, and if no such date is prescribed, eligibility has to be determined on the basis of application received till the last date an indicated in the advertisement. In the said case the candidates belonging to Category 1 had acquired the requisite eligibility qualifications by the extended date. As to Category 3 it was conceded that the candidates had given the Punjab examination before the cut-off date and though the results were not declared but their answer-books were evaluated before 30.10.1996 and the results were formally declared after the cut-off date and they had passed the requisite examination in Punjab. The Court observed that in view of the appointment letters having been issued, the selection and appointment of such candidates should be not disturbed. This order was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is the exclusive domain of the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other significant feature of the case was that the appointment which were made earlier and they had joined the organization were not disturbed. In the instant case the petitioner and such other candidates have yet not joined the respondent organization. The facts of this case do not have direct bearing on the facts of the instant case. No other court enjoys that jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief on the strength of this judgment.

18. In the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. v.

Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Ors. their lordships of the Supreme Court held that the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The procedure adopted, therefore, in appointing the persons from the waiting list prepared by the respective Boards, though the vacancies had arisen subsequently without being notified for recruitment, is unconstitutional. The Court further observed that, since the appointments had already been made, the Court would not interfere with these matters adversely affecting their appointments. This judgment also has no bearing on the facts of the instant case. Here the vacancies have not subsequently arisen and the letters of appointment were sent to those who had given written test according to merits and in this case also ultimately the Court did not interfere with their appointment. The ratio of the case is clear that the public authorities must make appointments to only the number of vacancies advertised. The respondent should recruit in accordance with the vacancies notified in the advertisement. Some selected candidates can always be kept in the waiting list and in the eventuality of some candidates ultimately not joining, the candidates in the waiting list could be accommodated. This method would definitely have a much greater credibility and transparency in public appointments. The way in which the appointments have been made in the instant case gives the impression that even without there being any requirement candidates have been selected and kept in service. One can legitimately have suspicion on why have the respondents not respected the terms of the advertisement issued by them. Advertised vacancies were about 250 and in fact 279 candidates have been kept in service in the first instance and thereafter 62 letters were sent to more number or candidates. This clearly shows that either the number of vacancies were not carefully evaluated and appointments were given on the basis of whims and fancies of the respondents. Since all those persons are not before this Court, therefore, it would not be appropriate to disturb their appointments in these proceedings.

19. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent does not require any more management trainees and since there are no vacancies, therefore, the respondent cannot be burdened with the liability of more candidates by extending the date of joining.

20. Mr. Rohtagi also submitted that the petitioner who had himself asked for extension cannot be heard to say that the cut-off date cannot be extended.

21. Mr. Rohatgi also submitted that the respondent has nothing against the petitioner, but in public appointments they have to draw in a line and cut-off dates have to be given. Just because the cut-off date has been extended once, it does not mean the respondent is under an obligation to repeatedly extend the date. He placed reliance on the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekher and Anr. . In para 6 of the judgment their lordships of the Supreme Court observed that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. He also placed reliance on Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Anr. (1996 SCC (L&S) 226). Their lordships of the Supreme Court have mentioned that it is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Those candidates who possessed all the qualifications as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules. Since the appellant had not possessed the Physical Training Instructor qualifications as on that date, her illegal consideration by the Board and recommendation for appointment and the appointment made in furtherance thereof are illegal.

22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant records. In the instant case respondent No. 1 advertised around 250 posts of Management Trainees (Technical) and they had sent offers to 361 candidates and ultimately kept 279 candidates. This is not in consonance with the terms of the advertisement. Not only that 279 persons were kept against the advertised vacancies of around 250 persons, but 62 candidates were given further opportunity to join as Management Trainees and out of them 14 candidates had in fact joined.

23. In the matter of public appointments the concerned authorities ought to appoint only such number of persons whose vacancies have been advertised. In case the authorities entertained apprehension that some of them may not ultimately join, the organisation in that case, according to the well established practice may keep some candidates in the waiting list in order of merit and in case of non joining of the selected candidates, the candidates in the waiting list be invited to join in order of their merit. There has to be total transparency in public appointments. In my considered view, according to the facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate to disturb the appointments of the persons who have been appointed in excess of the advertised vacancies. They are not even parties to this petition.

24. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to direct respondent No. 1 to induct the petitioner in service. However, it is made clear that in case any further appointments are made to the posts of Management Trainees (Technical), then the petitioner and such other candidates must be considered first and only after exhausting the list of all these candidates short listed in order of merit, respondent No. 1 would be at liberty in to appoint any one else as Management Trainee (Technical) in the Steel Authority of India. In other words, no new appointments shall be made to the posts of Management Trainees (Technical) till all those selected candidates are exhausted. The selection process for future appointments must be streamlined and the process of appointment be made fully transparent. The advertisement must be issued after evaluating vacancies carefully and public authorities must strictly follow the norms set up in the advertisement. The public authorities must adhere to the schedule fixed by them and ordinarily no extension should be granted and in some cases if it becomes imperative, then it must be done after proper advertisement and information to all concerned.

25. No further direction are necessary in this writ petition. The writ petition and the C.M. are accordingly disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.