Durgesh Ghosh vs The Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

The brief facts emerges from the original application are that applicant was initially appointed as L.D.C in the year 1997. Thereafter he has been qualified to the post of U.D.C. under the direct recruitment process in the year 2007 and further he was also qualified to the post of Assistant Section Officer and presently posted at Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan, Regional Office, Varanasi as Assistant Section Officer. As per departmental notification dated 02.11.2022, applicant applied for the post of Section Officer as well as Finance Officer. Admit card was issued in favour of the applicant to the post of Section Officer as well as Finance Officer. Date of written examination for the post of Section Officer as well as Finance Officer was scheduled on 22.01.2023 (two shifts). Pursuant to aforesaid admit card, the applicant appeared in the written examination, which was held on 22.01.2023 both shifts. Ultimately applicant qualified to the post of Section Officer pertaining to the vacancy year 2023 and also he was declared pass to the post of Finance Officer in the vacancy year 2020. Since only two days was provided for submitting his willingness, therefore, applicant submitted his willingness to the post of Finance Officer. Applicant stated in the OA that he is suffering from the end stage of chronic kidney failure disease and his treatment is going on from AIIMS Delhi/Heritage Hospital at Varanasi. Applicant submitted detailed representation before the respondent No.1 on 19.05.2023 requesting therein that his posting may be made on the post of Section Officer instead of Finance Officer. The request of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 26.06.2023, which is assailed in this OA.

We have heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no rider in the notification dated 02.11.2022 about calling of option from selected candidates, thus respondents is not entitled to impose the terms and condition on the applicant, which was not mentioned in the aforesaid notification. He further submitted that at the time of submitting his willingness, he was not suffering from kidney disease but all of sudden he was suffering from the end stage of severe kidney failure disease. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no legal requirement for submitting willingness for joining the post of Finance Officer as the aforesaid condition for submitting the willingness was not mentioned in the notification and it has been opted by the applicant by pressure. It is also argued that in earlier recruitment, such type of option was not given to the selected candidates, therefore, calling for exercise of option is not according to the term and condition of advertisement. Post of Section Officer is vacant at Varanasi.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that all the candidates including the applicant who were qualified in both the examination i.e. Finance Officer and Section Officer have been given their willingness. Since the applicant gave his option vide his letter dated 19.4.2023 for willing to join to the post of Finance Officer, there is no ground to change his option at the belated stage. Learned counsel further argued that on the request of the applicant to change of place of posting, respondents have decided to join at K.V.S Ranchi in place of K.V.S Raipur as there is well equipped medical facility. Learned counsel also argued that if his request for change of post would be accepted, it will create a lot of disturbance in the promotion chain and its affect will raise the so many disputes in different courts and therefore the request to join as Section Officer could not be acceded to.

We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

It is not in dispute that all the candidates including the applicant who have been selected for both the posts i.e. Finance Officer and Section Officer have given their willingness. It is also relevant to mention here that applicant has given his willingness to join the post of Finance Officer. If advertisement does not contain any stipulation regarding obtaining of willingness then also process adopted by the respondents cannot be termed to be illegal. Applicant who has been selected for both posts, would join only on one post. If the respondents decided to call for option from the selected candidates to which the applicant has exercised the option then the action of the respondents also cannot be termed to be arbitrary. Applicant who has exercised the option and in pursuance thereof has given his willingness for particular post then later on he cannot be permitted to retract from his previous conduct. Once he has exercised the option, he would be estopped from challenging the process adopted by the respondents. It is important to mention here that if at the belated stage his request to change the post from Finance officer to Section Officer would be considered, it will create the disturbance in chain.

In view of the above submissions, we find that applicant who had submitted his willingness, is not entitled for conversion from the post of Finance Officer to Section Officer at the belated stage. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the O.A and O.A deserves to be dismissed, hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.