Delhi High Court

Union Of India & Ors. vs Aditya Narayan & Anr. on 20 March, 2015

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 2756/2015
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                     Through             Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv Kr.
                                         Saxena & Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari,
                                         Advocates
                          versus
       ADITYA NARAYAN & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                    Through    None.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
                    ORDER

% 20.03.2015

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. Nos. 4929-4930/2015 (Exemptions)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2756/2015 & CM APPL. Nos. 4928 & 4931/2015

Challenge in the present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 19.08.2014 passed by

the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') whereby the learned

Tribunal had disposed of the Original Applications (in short 'OAs')

No.3752/2012 preferred by the respondents with a direction to the

petitioners to cull out the suitability of the candidates on the basis of the

trade test held in the selection process set in motion in November, 2007

with reference to seniority-cum-suitability of the candidates (apprentices).

Assailing the legality and correctness of the said order, Mr. Ruchir

Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the post of

Assistant Binder is a non-selection post and the appointment on the said

post was made on seniority-cum-suitability basis and not merely based on

seniority. The learned counsel further argued that on 08.02.2008,

practical test/ trade test was conducted and on 09.08.2008, the

Recruitment Board in its meeting declared a panel of 37 candidates who

had qualified in this test. Challenging this declaration of Recruitment

board two applicants, Puneet and Nafe Singh filed O.A No. 2318/2008

before the learned CAT, alleging that the persons who had done

apprenticeship much after them had been selected. Vide Order dated

20.11.2008, the learned CAT dismissed the said O.A. Challenging the

order passed by learned CAT, these applicants filed W.P.C No. 26 of

2009 before this court. This court vide its judgment and order dated

20.07.2010, while disposing off this petition directed the respondent to

redraw a list of empanelled candidates, not on the basis of their merit

position, but on the basis of their seniority reckoned from the dates they

successfully obtained the apprenticeship certificates, subject to their

suitability. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court, the respondent

redrew the panel of selected candidates on 06.12.2011, in which they did

not included the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that they

being candidates of general category have failed to secure 60% marks.

The learned counsel argued that in July, 2012 in the Contempt

Petition, i.e. CP No.723/2011 preferred by the respondents, the petitioners

had filed a reply wherein they had taken a categorical stand that they have

redrawn the panel in terms of the direction given by the this court vide

judgment dated 20.07.2010 and based on this reply filed by the

petitioners only, the learned Tribunal disposed of the said Contempt

Petition preferred by the respondents, giving them a liberty to file a fresh

OA. The learned counsel also argued that the learned Tribunal has failed

to appreciate the difference between the appointment on seniority-cum-

merit and merit-cum-seniority basis and thus erred in holding that the

petitioners based the entire selection process on marks obtained by the

respondents in the trade test. The learned counsel also argued that the

learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that if seniority of

apprenticeship is made, the sole criteria for appointment then the seniors

would get appointment regardless of their unsuitability and the same will

defeat the rights of the other meritorious candidates and therefore, the

petitioners adopted the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability wherein a

trade test would be conducted in which the candidates appearing in UR

category shall obtain minimum 60% marks and in SC/ST/OBC/PH

category shall obtain 50% marks. Based on these submissions, the learned

counsel for the petitioners prays for setting aside the order passed by the

learned Tribunal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at

considerable length and have given our conscious consideration to the

arguments advanced by him.

In November, 2007, an advertisement was issued by the petitioners

inviting applications for filling up 45 vacancies of Assistant Binder in the

Directorate of Printing. The respondents herein had participated in the

selection process but were not included in the panel of selected

candidates. There were some other candidates, namely, Puneet and Nafe

Singh who had undergone apprenticeship from 07.10.1997 to 06.10.1999

and 07.10.1998 to 06.10.2000 respectively, and participated in the

selection process but remain unsuccessful. These two applicants had

approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA NO.2318/2008, raising

the plea that the candidates who had done apprenticeship much after them

were selected in utter disregard to their preferential claim of having

completed the apprenticeship much earlier in comparison to the

successful candidates. The claim of these applicants before the learned

Tribunal was that the post being 'non-selection post', the question of

'comparative merit' was not the criteria and that the criteria was that the

ones who had completed apprenticeship earlier would be required to be

treated as senior and hence would be entitled to be appointed. The learned

Tribunal did not agree with the plea raised by these applicants and

dismissed the OA preferred by them.

To challenge the order of the learned Tribunal, these applicants

preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) 26/2009 and vide order dated 20th

July, 2010, accepting the plea of these applicants, this Court gave the

following directions:

"28. We need not wait for any report in view of the legal position, as per our understanding above, which requires us to dispose of the instant petition setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 and disposing of the instant writ petition as also OA No.2318/2008 by passing the directions to the 3rd respondent to redraw a list of empanelled candidates, not on the basis of their merit position, but on the basis of their

seniority reckoned from the dates they successfully obtained the apprenticeship certificates, subject to their suitability. We clarify that if on the basis of the trade test and the interview which was conducted, suitability can be culled out de hors the merit, same should be done and if not the candidates be re- subjected to a trade test with the focus of the test being to determine suitability and not the relative merit.

29. We clarify that since appointments in the unreserved category and the ST category are not in question for the reason one petitioner applied for the sole post in the SC category and the other applied for a post in the OBC category, needful would be done only in respect of the SC and OBC candidates and not the candidates in the unreserved category and ST category.

Needful be done within a period of 4 months from today. Till the directions issued are complied with, existing empanelled candidates in the category of SC and OBS shall continue to work."

Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners had redrawn the panel

but since the redrawn panel was also based on the same criteria adopted

by the petitioners, therefore, fresh challenge was laid by the respondents

to the said panel and by impugned order dated 19.08.2014, the learned

Tribunal gave fresh direction to the petitioners to cull out the suitability

of the candidates on the basis of the trade test held in the selection

process set in motion in November, 2007 with reference to seniority-cum-

suitability of the candidates (apprentices). In our view the learned tribunal

is right in holding that since the petitioners have again based the entire

selection process on qualifying marks and standard merit of the

respondents, ignoring the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court vide

order dated 20.07.2010, they shall cull out the suitability of the candidates