Manish Kumar v. Railtel India Corporation Limited

1. As common issues falls for consideration in these petitions, the same are being decided by this order. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: 2017:DHC:8168 '•v Prayers in W.P.CQ 4838/2016 "In the light of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; a. Callfor the records and issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order setting aside the Office Order RCIL/20J5/P&A/44/I[5] dated 03.02.2016 by which the Petitioner was discharged from immediate effect holding the same as bad in law, null and void, and nonest; b. set aside the recommendation, if any, made by the Screening Committeefor discharging the Petitioner; c. set aside the examination scheme which gives for more weightage to interview than it is legallylegitimate; d. direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefit; e. direct the Respondent to provide the Petitioner another opportunity to appear in the interview; f such other order(s) this Hon 'ble Court may deemfit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case." Prayers in W.P.fCI No. 4863/2016 "In the light of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; a. Callfor the records, issue WritofCertiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order setting aside the Office Order V RCIL/2015/P&A/44/15 dated 03.02.2016 by which the Petitioner was dischargedfrom immediate effect holding the same as bad in law, null and void, and nonest; b. set aside the recommendation, if any, made by the Screening Committeefor discharging the Petitioner; c. set aside the examination scheme which gives for more weightage to interview than it is legally legitimate; d. direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefit; e. direct the Respondent to provide the Petitioner another opportunity to appear in the interview; f such other order(s) this Hon 'ble Court may deemfit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners Manish Kumar and Deepak Kerketta were appointed on March 4, 2013 and December 22, 2012 as Deputy Manager (Technical) and Deputy Manager (Marketing) respectively, with the respondent initially on probation of 24 months, which could be curtailed or extended. He concedes that the confirmation was subject to clearing ofthe examination comprising ofWritten Test, Interview and Performance Review. On January 24, 2015, the petitioners appeared in the Written Examination, meant for confirmation, but they could not clear the same. In the Written Examination held on V November 7, 2015, the petitioners cleared the Written Examination and were called for Interview on December 16, 2015. On January 12, 2016, an office order was issued by the respondent, which is a Ust of executives whose probation period was confirmed, but, that did not mention the name ofthe petitioners. In other words, the petitioners were not confirmed, which resulted in discharge of the petitioners jfrom the services of the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the criteria for Interview has not been laid down by the respondent inasmuch, as in what manner, the members of the Interview Committee would award the marks. He states, that an officer who has done well in the Written Examination and has a good APAR Grading, could not have been given less marks in the Interview. He also states, that there was a favourable recommendation from the reporting officer of the petitioner No.l. He draws my attention to the order passed by this Court on November 13, 2016, wherein, this Court has directed the respondent to file an affidavit on the policy or the basis of marking of the candidates in the Interview. According to him, the affidavit filed by the respondent on February 2, 2017 does not reflect the basis of the marking by the Interview Board. He states thatthe present petitions need to be allowed and the petitioners be confirmed in the services of Deputy Manager (Technical) and Deputy Manager (Marketing) respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners also state that the three officers whose names were not found mentioned in the order dated January 12, 2016 issued by the respondent as confirmed, wereconfirmed on a subsequent date.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the Notification issued regarding Examination for confirmation of Executives on probation to contend that the candidate must secure 60% marks in the Written Test and Interview and Performance Review individually and combined, for confirmation in the level of El to E[4] category. He states as the petitioners did not secure 60% marks in the Interview and cumulative of Interview and Performance Review, the services ofthe petitioners were not confirmed. He has drawn my attention to the record of the confirmation proceedings maintained by the respondent, which has also been reflected in the additional affidavit filed by the respondent, to state that the petitioners have secured 28 marks (28/40) in Performance Review and 20/60 & 25/60 marks in the Interview, the cumulative ofwhich isbelow 60%, insupport of his contention.

5. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the three officers, whose names did not find V mention in the original order issued by the respondent, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to page 120 of the paper book, to state that as the Annual Performance Report (APR) of those three officers, could not be concluded, their names were not mentioned in the order showing the list of confirmed officers. He has also shown the relevant record to show that against their names, the marks under the APR grading were left blank. It was only after the APR gradings were made available, the marks were allottedto them and they were found fit to be confirmed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties; seen the averments made in the writ petitions and the record produced by the respondent, I do not see any illegality in the non-confirmation of the petitioners. The same is based on the instructions issued by the respondent at the time of initiating the confirmation procedure inasmuch as a candidate has to secure 60% marks in the Written Test and Interview and Performance Review individually and combined. Since the petitioner has not secured 60% marks in Interview and Interview and Performance Review cumulatively, the petitioners were not confirmed. In the absence of any challenge to the criteria, no fault can be found in that regard.

7. Insofar as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners despite having secured good marks in the Written Test and having good APR gradings, could not have been given 20 marks only, inthe Interview, is concerned, the award of the marks by the Interview Board cannot be interfered by the Court as the same is on the subjective satisfaction of the Members of Interview Board. In any case, no foundation has been laid in the writ petitions that the marks have been allotted by the Members of the Interview Board with malice. In the absence of such pleadings, it must be presumed that the members of the Interview Board have given the marks bonafidely. It is not a case of no criteria. The affidavit filed by the respondent depicts the same. There is a criteria which has been laid down by the respondent for assessing the officers for confirmation. Moreover, the action being justified by the respondent, on the basis of the records, I do not see any ground to interfere in the impugned decision ofthe respondent.

8. The writ petitions are dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MAY 16, 2017