AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The petitioners challenge Clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 3 of the policy enunciated by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L), the second respondent herein, in its proceedings, dated 10.03.2003.
The factual background, that gave rise to the filing of this writ petition, is as under:
The petitioners were employed as Senior Technical Assistants in the erstwhile Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. The next superior post is Junior Telecom Officer. The appointment to that post is from three channels, namely 50% through direct recruitment, 35% by promotion after conducting departmental scrutiny test and 15% on competitive basis restricting the participation to departmental candidates. A notification for holding the competitive examination for 15% quota, was published on 09.12.1998 and the examinations were held on 15th and 16th May, 1999. The results were declared on 25.11.1999. The petitioners were not selected in that batch.
A similar notification was issued on 10.03.2000 in the Andhra Pradesh Circle. Examinations were held on 16th and 17th September, 2000. However, the examinations were cancelled on the allegation that the question papers were leaked. Thereafter, the examinations were conducted on 30.12.2000 and the results were declared on 24.11.2000. The petitioners chose to appear from Hyderabad Centre, but on a boycott call given by the Trade Unions, they did not appear in the examination.
The B.S.N.L. came into existence with effect from 01.10.2000. On finding that the substantial number of posts against 15% competitive examination quota remained unfilled, it was decided to relax the standards. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, dated 10.03.2003, were issued. The salient features thereof are that the requirement that a candidate must pass in each subject was relaxed and pass in the test, as a whole, was treated as sufficient. Before relaxation, the minimum marks for O.C. candidates were ''40'' and for S.C. candidates, it was ''33''. They were relaxed to ''30'' and ''20'' respectively. A clause, however, was added to the effect that in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, the benefit of 20% would be available only in respect of the candidates, whose results were declared before 27.07.1997 and after 03.10.2000. Another important condition is that the relaxation referred to above, would be applied to one of the two examinations held in the years 1999 and 2000, whichever is later.
The petitioners contend that restricting the relaxation to one of the examinations held in the years 1999 and 2000, whichever is later, would adversely affect them, inasmuch as they were prevented from appearing in the examination conducted in the year 2000. Other contentions also advanced complaining discrimination.
The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that the relaxation or for that matter, the extension of benefit thereof cannot be claimed as of right. It is stated that the examination for the year 2000 was held not only in Andhra Pradesh Circle, but also in various Circles in the country. The allegation of the petitioners that all the candidates from the Andhra Pradesh Circle are discriminated in the context of the examination held in the year 2000, is not correct, inasmuch as hundreds of candidates were either selected initially or were extended the benefit under the scheme on the basis of their performance in the examination held in the year 2000.
Sri M. Surender Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the policy contained in the impugned proceedings is discriminatory and arbitrary in several respects. He contends that the petitioners are either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates and denying the benefit to them for the performance in the examination held in the year 1999, is totally unjustified. He contends that the non-appearance of the petitioners in the examination held in the year 2000, was on account of the reasons beyond their control.
Sri Y. Ravindra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a uniform policy was evolved for application towards the country and the mere fact that the petitioners were disabled from appearing in the examination of the year 2000, cannot be treated as a factor to find fault with the policy.
The petitioners claim the benefit under the proceedings, through which relaxation was granted in favour of the candidates, who did not make it up to the selection in the years 1999 and 2000. Though there was a change in the constitution of the organization, it has not much of relevance in the present context. The post of the Junior Telecom Officer occupies an important position in the organization. The same is evident from the fact that only Graduate Engineers are eligible to apply, under the direct recruitment quota. Assessment of almost equivalent standard is to be undertaken vis-a-vis 15% competitive quota, for which the participation is restricted to departmental candidates. According to the relevant rules, an O.C. candidate must secure minimum of 40 marks and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates must secure 33. This is in addition to the requirement that the candidates must secure pass marks in each subject. Realizing that adequate number of candidates were not qualified under this category, the respondents relaxed the conditions. Here itself, a caveat must be added to the effect that no individual can claim relaxation, as a matter of right, nor can this Court compel an employer to relax its rules. The only area of interference would be the uniform and objective application of the policy so evolved.
The petitioners feel aggrieved with Clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 3 of the policy, which read as under:
(iii) The required minimum aggregate marks in all four subjects will be 30% for O.C. Candidates and 20% for SC/ST candidates. However, in respect of result which have been finalized between 27th July, 1997 and 3rd October, 2000 there would be no separate standards for SC/ST candidates and 30% will be uniformly applied to all candidates.
(iv) The above relaxation would be applied to either of the two examinations i.e., the examination held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000 whichever was later. In short, the relaxation will not be application to both the examinations where the examination has been held in both the years but will be applicable to the last examination held in a circle under 15% quota and shall not be a precedent for any future examination.
A perusal of the same discloses that the respondents have taken a conscious decision to extend the benefit of relaxation, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners are not able to reap the benefit of relaxation, on account of the fact that they did not appear in the examination conducted in the year 2000. Except that, there is no other factor to complain.
It is not as if the examination was conducted in the year 2000 in the Andhra Pradesh Circle alone. It was conducted in many Circles all over the country. Even in the Andhra Pradesh Circle, the boycott was not in all the Centres. It was only at Hyderabad Centre that the candidates were said to have been prevented by the trade unions. That is a matter, which is totally outside the control of the petitioners or for that matter, the respondents. Such factors, howsoever genuine they may be, cannot constitute the basis to find fault with the policy, which otherwise conforms to the requirement of law.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners claims the relief on the strength of a memo, dated 19.04.1979, which provides for the benefit of relaxation exclusively to the candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Even this is a measure, which empowers the concerned employers, and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. At any rate, the said order stood complied with, on account of the special measures provided for in the impugned proceedings.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.