K.Manoharan & anr. vs The Union of India & ors.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25 March, 2014, in O.A.No.217 of 2012, whereby and where under, while directing the

Government of Puducherry, to offer appointment to the applicants 1 and 2 in the original application, denied appointment to the petitioners on the

ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the petitioners, who were applicants 4 and 3, belonging to under Scheduled Caste and Most

Backward Community.

The petitioners along with two other applicants filed Original Application in O.A.No.217 of 2012 before the Madras Bench of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint them in the post of Trainee School Librarian, from the date on which selected

candidates were appointed.

The petitioners and the other two applicants in the Original Application submitted applications for appointment to the post of Trainee School

Librarian, pursuant to the Notification, dated 18 December, 2009. During the pendency of the selection process, Recruitment Rules were

amended. The new Recruitment Rules came into force on 19 January 2010. The respondents, therefore, confined the selection to 21 vacancies,

which existed prior to the amendment to the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners and the other two applicants were placed in the waiting list.

When a challenge was made to the selection, the Tribunal found that the calculation of vacancies was not correct. According to the Tribunal,

there were eight more vacancies existed prior to the cut-off date. The Tribunal found that out of the eight vacancies, six were in the Unreserved

Category and one each in Other Backward Community (OBC) and Most Backward Community (MBC). The petitioners were not

accommodated, as there were no vacancies in their category. The Tribunal directed the Government of Puducherry to appoint the other two

candidates. The petitioners have come up with this writ petition with a contention that the Tribunal erred in fixing the vacancies at 8 and distributing

the post among Unreserved Category, OBC and MBC, without considering the material fact that roster point was neither correctly indicated and

followed by the Union Territory of Puducherry.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that there were no vacancies in MBC and SC

category to accommodate the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the respondents were not correct in absorbing a staff of the Bal

Bhavan against the Scheduled Caste backlog vacancy. The learned counsel contended that there were 19 posts reserved for Scheduled Caste

category. The Government have filled up only 18 vacancies and as such, there was one vacancy. Similarly, vacancy in MBC has also made out

from the records. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal failed to take into account the roster position and as such, the impugned order

denying appointments to the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal was correct in its finding with regard to the vacancies. According to the learned

Government Pleader, irrelevant materials are produced before this Court to review the order passed by the Tribunal. It was contended that none

of the materials now relied on were produced before the Tribunal and as such, it would not be possible to take up a contention while exercising

judicial review of the order passed by the Tribunal.

The Government of Puducherry, issued a notification, dated 18 December, 2009 calling for applications for appointment to the post of Trainee

School Librarian. The Government notified 30 vacancies, of which 15 were General Category, 6 MBC, 4 OBC and 5 SC. The petitioners

submitted applications in accordance with the notification. The Government of Puducherry, in the meantime, amended the Recruitment Rules for

the post of Trainee School Librarian. The Notification was gazetted on 19 January, 2010. The Government, therefore, calculated the total

vacancies as on the date of notification of the amended Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, the Government appointed 21 candidates. The names of

the petitioners and 6 other candidates were included in the waiting list.

The petitioners along with two others filed Original Application before the Tribunal in O.A.No.217 of 2012 challenging the selection. Before the

Tribunal, the petitioners contended that the Government was not correct in restricting the appointment to 21 candidates, notwithstanding the 30

vacancies notified earlier.

The Tribunal directed the Government of Puducherry to produce the details of vacancies, which existed prior to the amendment of Recruitment

Rules. The Tribunal, on a perusal of the documents produced by the Government of Puducherry arrived at a finding that in addition to 21 posts,

there were at least 8 more vacancies existed prior to the cut off date. The Tribunal has given a factual finding that out of 8 posts, 6 posts were in

the unreserved category and one each in OBC and MBC category. The other two applicants were accommodated. The petitioners were not given

appointment. The petitioners have now produced materials in support of their contention that there were sufficient vacancies to accommodate the

Scheduled Caste and Most Backward candidates. None of these documents were produced before the Tribunal.

This Court is exercising the judicial review in respect of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. There is no question of

conducting a roving enquiry by receiving additional materials for the purpose of testing the order passed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, on the basis of the records arrived at a finding with regard to the actual vacancies and the Reserved Category. The petitioners

now wanted this Court to consider the roster point for each category right from the beginning to arrive at a finding with regard to the vacancies in

the Reserved Category.

We are not in a position to entertain the plea that this Court has to consider the roster point from the beginning and re-do the entire exercise. In

case there are documents to support their case, the petitioners ought to have produced the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The

writ petition cannot be treated as an Original Application to consider the matter afresh. This Court is concerned only with the legality and

correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. The judicial review is not in the nature of first appeal entitling the parties to produce materials to

take a different view. We are therefore of the view that absolutely, there is no merit in the contention taken by the petitioners.

In the up shot, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.