R.S. Mewati v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes VIPIN SANGHI, J. *

1. The petitioner assails the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.149/2007 titled “R.S. Mewati v. Union of India & Ors.”. By the impugned order the aforesaid Original Application filed by the petitioner to seek direction to the respondents, inter alia, to adhere to the select panel prepared by the respondents for making appointment to the post of General Manager, Delhi Milk Scheme, wherein the petitioner had 2009:DHC:5509-DB been placed at serial No.2, has been dismissed on a finding that the no reserve panel or waiting list had been prepared by the selection committee. The challenge to fill up the said vacancy by the petitioner on the ground that he was on the waiting list/reserve panel was, therefore, rejected.

2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Joint General Manager in Ordnance Cable Factory, Ministry of Defence. The respondent, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture vide their O.M. dated 16.03.2005 circulated the post of General Manager to be filled through officers of All India Service or Central Service Group „A‟ on deputation basis. The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. The Selection Committee placed the three applicants in order of merit. One Sh. S.K. Srivastava was placed at No.1 and the petitioner was placed at No.2 position. Sh. S.K. Srivastava was offered the post of General Manager, DMS, which he joined on 27.04.2006. However, within a period of less than six months i.e. on 30.09.2006 he was repatriated to his parent department.

3. The petitioner upon learning of the repatriation of Sh. S.K. Srivastava staked his claim for the post of General Manager, DMS by claiming that the Selection Committee had prepared a select panel and that he was next in line for being offered the said position as Sh. S.K. Srivastava had vacated the said position within six months. He submitted that on the basis of the office memorandum dated 13.06.2000 issued by the DoP&T, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, the respondents were obliged to operate the reserve panel and that they could not have treated the vacancy created by the repatriation of Sh. S.K. Srivastava as a fresh vacancy and undertaken a fresh process of recruitment.

4. The respondents opposed the Original Application and stated that the petitioner was neither empanelled nor selected. Only one name i.e. of Sh. S.K. Srivastava was recommended by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 23.12.2005 for appointment to the post of General Manager, DMS. While accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the competent authority had taken a decision to appoint Sh. S.K. Srivastava only for a period of six months since a proposal of handing over of the DMS to Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Foundation was under consideration at that time and it was expected that a final decision would be taken within a period of 3 to 4 months. It was also stated that the selection committee did not recommend any panel and only one name i.e. of Sh. S.K. Srivastava was recommended. The Selection Committee had not stated anything about further consideration of the remaining two names, out of which one was that of the petitioner.

5. The Tribunal, while rejecting the petitioner‟s Original Application, held that a perusal of the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting leaves no doubt that the said Committee considered the three officers, who had applied for the post, but recommended only one officer, namely, Sh. S.K. Srivastava for the post of General Manager, DMS on deputation basis. No reserve list/waiting list was prepared by the committee and the petitioner‟s claim that he was in the waiting list had no merit.

6. Before us the submission of Mr. Khatana, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Selection Committee had arranged the names of the eligible candidates in order of merit and he also placed reliance on the aforesaid O.M. dated 13.06.2000. Mr. Khatana has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors.” (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 591, wherein the Supreme Court had considered the issue as to what constitutes a waiting list.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the Tribunal and he contends that the Selection Committee merely recommended one name i.e. of Sh. S.K. Srivastava and did not prepare any reserve panel which could be operated upon in the event of the initial appointee quitting the post in question within a period six months.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the relevant documents and the decision cited by the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The finding of the Tribunal that there was no reserve panel/waiting list prepared by the Selection Committee appears to be perfectly reasonable and does not call for interference.

9. In Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association (supra) in paragraph 8, the Supreme Court considered the question as to what is a waiting list. The said paragraph reads as follows:

10. From the above extract, it is clear that normally a select panel/waiting list is prepared where there are multiple vacancies/posts to be filed, and the occurance of vacancies in the posts is a regular phenomena. In that situation, the authority making the selection/ recruitment may prepare a panel so as to deal with the problem of some of the selected candidates either not accepting the offer of appointment, or quitting within a short period of their joining the post or vacancies arising in the near future on account of retirements or resignations. With a view to save time and effort in making a fresh recruitment, a panel is prepared in such situations in accordance with the rules governing the process of selection and recruitment, to tap into the already identified and evaluated talent. However, the same considerations would not normally be applicable in the case of selection for and appointment to a single post. For a single post, which may be filled only upon the vacancy arising, and not frequently/regularly, the number of eligible candidates may not be enough to present a worthwhile choice to the employer. Even in the present case, there were only three eligible candidates considered by the Selection Committee. It is for this reason, the Supreme Court also drew a distinction between a situation involving recruitment and selection for multiple posts for which recruitments are held on a regular basis, and that involving a single post.