ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J - (1.) ONE Amit Kumar Hazra and 25 others approached the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging irregularity in the selection process of Mazdoors by the Military Engineering Service Department of Union of India. They participated in the selection process, however, became unsuccessful. In the petition before the Tribunal various irregularities were highlighted. The principal contention was, however, centered around compliance of the Recruitment Rules. According to the said applicants, for the post of Mazdoor, the authority conducted physical endurance test and as per the rules, the candidates who could pass out the physical eligibility test should be called for interview. However, the authority called each one of them and gave indiscriminating marks in the interview to have selection of their favoured candidates. The Tribunal upset the entire selection process, as accordingly to the Tribunal, the applicants could satisfy about the irregularity. While observing so, the Tribunal, highlighted six issues:- I. The selected persons were graduates. II. Candidature of OBC candidates who had availed age relaxation were transferred to general category. III. Respondents have acted in violation of selection notification. IV. Malice in law and malice in fact apparent. V. The authority accepted the application even after the due date (Example of Ms.Suchitra). VI. Over aged persons had been selected. ( Example of Sundara Vadivelu).
(2.) THE Tribunal observed, the standard operating procedure was not followed. The Tribunal set aside the entire selection process and directed preparation of fresh merit list as per Annexure-VIII. Hence, this appeal by the Union of India. If we look to the judgement and order impugned, we would find, except generalized remarks, the judgement did not point out any specific irregularity except the case of Suchitra and Sunder Vadivelu. We have verifed the records appearing at the paper book. Mr.Das, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India drew our attention to the record. We find Vadivelu was well within his age limit. Application of Suchitra was received well ahead. Appearing for the respondents, Ms.Zinu, learned counsel, drew our attention to the results trying to demonstrate the discrepancy that we hardly found. The standard operation procedure suggested by the Tribunal was applicable for regular Group-C and Group-D employees, whereas the present recruitment process would relate to Mazdoor. Ms.Zinu cited two examples; one Xalxo and the other Hamilton. Page 59 of the paper book would show, Xalxo was having Roll No.1073. He was selected in ex-servicemen category whereas in page 106 another Xalxo having Roll No.1093 was shown as absent. With regard to Hamilton, Ms.Zinu referred to page 60 where Hamilton having Roll No.709 was selected having scored 64 marks as shown in page 109. However, his running was for 8 minutes whereas other selected candidates could qualify running within seven minutes. On these two solitary examples, we cannot support the order of the Tribunal. These two examples were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on two other cases which were not correct on factual verification. In any event, it would not be proper for us to upset the process only on those two solitary examples (that too, we are not at all impressed), when thousands of people appeared in the selection process.
(3.) MR .Das appearing for the Union of India referred to photographs to show, physical endurance tests were duly held. The authority published the advertisement and conducted the selection process. They were entitled to fix criteria for the post. They were also entitled to fix the method of selection. Unless it is patently illegal or arbitrary, the Court of law would be slow to upset such selection process. We fail to reason, how such process could be upset at the instance of unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection process without making any grievance out of it.;