A.S. Ravi v. Union of India and Ors.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Mr. A.S. Ravi seeking two reliefs. First relief prayed for is to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Director of the respondent No.3-Indian Institute of Packaging (hereinafter referred to as „respondent-Institute‟). Second relief claimed is 2013:DHC:2975 for payment to the petitioner of bonus/share in consultancy income, over time allowance and risk allowance.

2. So far as the relief claimed for appointment to the post of Assistant Director is concerned, the same is on the basis that respondent- Institute should not announce the result of examination of Assistant Director advertised in March, 1997 and the examination for the post of Assistant Director be quashed. It would therefore appear as if the petitioner is challenging the selection process of March, 1997, however a reading of the writ petition shows that actually petitioner who was already an employee of the respondent-Institute as a Technical Assistant is challenging the process of appointment of Assistant Directors of March, 1997 on the basis that he ought to have been appointed as an Assistant Director by the respondentinstitute originally in April, 1995 itself when he was appointed as only a Technical Assistant. It may be noted that the petitioner applied for the post of an Assistant Director in terms of the advertisement of March, 1997, while working as a Technical Assistant of the respondent-Institute, but petitioner was not found fit for being considered for the post inasmuch as the post of Assistant Director required experience of eight years in packaging whereas petitioner only had five years experience in packaging.

3. The first issue is therefore whether the petitioner should have been appointed as an Assistant Director in April, 1995 itself when he was appointed as a Technical Assistant with the respondent-Institute. A reading of the requirements for appointment to the post of Assistant Director pursuant to the advertisement dated 3.9.1994 shows that there was a requirement of five years experience in packaging operations. Petitioner did not have this five years experience inasmuch as he had only two years experience in the packaging material testing and other experience of three years was in metalizing which is different from packaging. Also the respondent-Institute has stated in the counter affidavit that packaging includes various sub fields and petitioner had two years experience only on one aspect of packaging material testing. Relevant averments in this behalf are contained in following paras of the counter-affidavit:- “(ii) With respect to the advertisement dated 15-20 March, 1997, the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Director was Graduate in Engineering and Technology for operation or system with 8 years experience in packaging consultancy, research and development, packaging training etc.

(iii) It is respectfully submitted that for the post of Assistant

Director, it was desirable that the candidate should be well conversant with all the various sub specialties in the field of packaging, specialty in training, consultancy and research which could be considered as main function as to coordinate with various departments mentioned above and also to be involved actively to the training department.

(iv) However, it is respectfully submitted that though the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Director in pursuance of our advertisement dated 15-20 March, 1997, but he was not short listed for calling in the interview due to the following reasons: The petitioner did not have the requisite experience and exposure in various aspects of packaging as mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner was having only about 5 years experience in the field of packaging operation. The annexure indicated that the petitioner was working in the metalisation plant. Metallisation is a process where metals are deposited over any substrate like paper or plastic and one of the applications of substrate is in packaging. Subsequently the petitioner has joined in the Institute on 20th April, 1995 in the post of Technical Assistant where he has achieved two years experience in the packaging material testing only and thus the petitioner did not have any experience or exposure to any of the various other fields of packaging. As explained herein above that the Assistant Director is expected to have at least a working knowledge of all the fields of packaging. It is respectfully submitted that after receiving the applications for the post of Asstt. Director, the applications were short listed for calling for interview and it was only after scrutinizing all the factors i.e qualification, as well as experience in the related field of packaging, the candidate were called for the interview.

(v) It is respectfully submitted that the respondent No.5 Mrs.

Manjir Chakarvarty is a Science Graduate and has completed two years post-graduate diploma course in packaging which is conducted by the Institute and it is the only type of course which is well recognized as packaging course in the industry in India. Mrs. Manjir Chakarvarty has also undergone two months training in the packaging field in Clemson University USA and also in the Institute of packaging Italy for two weeks for getting more packaging experience. Mrs. Chakarvarti is working in the institute for the last 10 years as Technical Assistant. The Respondent No.4 Mr. I.H. Shaikh is a Science Graduate and also undergone the intensive training course in the field of packaging conducted by the Institute and obtained certificate in the field of packaging. He has also been working in the Institute since 1987 and got experience of 10 years. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being a employee of the answering respondent No.2 and 3, he was not otherwise also eligible for the post of Assistant Director as it is a next post to the rank to that of Technical Assistant. The petitioner had to put a minimum three years service in the rank of Technical Assistant before he could be considered for promotion to the rank of Assistant Director.” (underlining added)

4. A reading of the aforesaid assertions made in the counteraffidavit are relevant both for the 1994 interview and also for the 1997 interview for the post of Assistant Director. Obviously, the petitioner was not qualified for the 1997 interview as he did not have the eight years experience. For the post of Assistant Director in the year 1995, petitioner did not have five years experience. Petitioner therefore was not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Director both in the year 1995 and 1997.

5. In fact, petitioner is estopped from claiming the reliefs in the writ petition because the petitioner with open eyes accepted the post of a Technical Assistant with the respondent-Institute in April, 1995. When asked, counsel for the petitioner could not show any letter that the petitioner objected to being appointed to the post of Technical Assistant in April, 1995 and claim rights to the post only of an Assistant Director. Also, if an employee joins as a Technical Assistant without legally challenging his alleged entitlement for the post of Assistant Director, such an employee thereafter cannot claim that his original appointment as a Technical Assistant should be considered as an entitlement to the post of an Assistant Director. The convoluted reasoning and assertions made on behalf of the petitioner are very strange because not only the petitioner was unqualified in terms of experience for the post of Assistant Director in September, 1994/April, 1995, but the petitioner accepted employment at the post of Technical Assistant and took various benefits on the basis of the said post of Technical Assistant. Not only was petitioner disqualified for the interview of March, 1997 to the post of Assistant Director because he did not have eight years experience, the petitioner consequently woke up for claiming the post of Assistant Director not on the basis of March, 1997 process but on the basis of the process of September, 1994/April, 1995. The stand and assertions of the petitioner are therefore wholly unacceptable on all counts including of his lack of experience at the first time for being appointed to the post of Assistant Director, petitioner being estopped from claiming that he should not have been appointed as a Technical Assistant but should have been appointed as an Assistant Director in April, 1995, petitioner having participated in the process of March, 1997 but found disqualified, wants to now suddenly go back by a time machine to September, 1994/April, 1995 when he was appointed only as a Technical Assistant and not as an Assistant Director. The claim of the petitioner therefore for being entitled to the post of Assistant Director on the basis of his alleged entitlement in September, 1994/April, 1995 is therefore wholly without any merit and totally frivolous.

6. The second relief claimed on behalf of the petitioner is for various allowances such as payment of bonus/share in consultancy income, over time allowance and risk allowance. When the counsel for the petitioner was asked to show the rules of the respondent-Institute which provided for such allowances, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any averment in the writ petition or any document filed of the respondent-Institute which allowed such allowances as claimed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out various letters written claiming such allowances and some responses of the respondent-Institute, however, writing of letters does not create a legal right when such a right does not exist in terms of the rules and regulations of the respondent-Institute. Further, the circulars of the Central Government giving its employees certain benefits cannot automatically apply to the respondent-Institute which is not the Central Government but a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,

1860.

7. In view of the above, petitioner is neither entitled to the post of Assistant Director nor is the petitioner entitled to any allowances as claimed by him. The writ petition therefore being devoid of merit is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- being wholly frivolous and an abuse of process of law. Costs can be recovered by the respondent-Institute in accordance with law. MAY 31, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne