AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N.A. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
In view of the nature of the grievances, raised in the present writ petition, this court is inclined to hear the matter at the admission stage itself. Hence, Rule, returnable forthwith is issued.
By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking appointment in the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) under Ex-Servicemen quota in connection with the Recruitment Advertisement No. 2 of 2015 by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Assam Asset, Nazira.
The case as projected by the petitioner is that he is an Ex-Servicemen having eligibility for civil employment. Pursuant to the Recruitment Advertisement No. 2 of 2015, the petitioner had offered his candidature under the Ex-Servicemen category in the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) as indicated hereinabove. It is projected that out of 332 number of vacancies advertised, 48 posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen. It is further projected that the selection process was of three tier process and the petitioner was successful in the three tier selection process and his name was kept in the waiting list for appointment in the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations).
The petitioner projects that he came to know that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the ground that "None of the Ex-Serviceman could be selected for the post on their performance." Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted an application to obtain RTI information and as per the RTI reply dated 09.06.2016 received from the office of the General Manager (HR)(R&P), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Ltd., Assam Assets, Nazira, for the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) the name of the petitioner under Ex-Servicemen category had been empanelled.
In this regard, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner had applied for appointment under reserved Ex-Servicemen category and as 48 posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen, the denial of appointment to the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the stand of the respondents is that the Ex-Servicemen candidate were given due relaxation of age, exempted from application fee and relaxation as admissible to ex-servicemen candidates and the same was provided to the petitioner also. In spite of granting relaxation as admissible to ex-servicemen candidates, the petitioner has to establish his merit for selection and his preference was sufficient for empanelment as waitlisted candidate but not good enough for final selection. It is further submitted that this court by order dated 20.07.2016 issued notice and had directed that one post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) in the establishment of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Assam Asset, Nazira shall not be filled up. Hence, it is submitted that in the reservation for Ex-Servicemen category, the petitioner was the sole Ex-Servicemen in that category and his candidature could not have been rejected by the respondents.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has opposed the prayer made in this writ petition and he has submitted that as the performance of the petitioner was not up to the mark, he could not be selected for appointment and it is submitted that as other candidates were placed higher in the merit list and had a better chance for their selection and therefore, although the petitioner was empanelled, he could not be finally selected as others were placed higher than the petitioner. It is submitted that 16 candidates were selected for appointment in the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) and all of them had joined service and there was no chance for waiting list candidate to get any appointment. It is also submitted that before the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by this court was communicated to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, by that time the offer letters had been issued to all the 16 candidates and all of them had joined in their respective posts. Accordingly, it is submitted that the interim order passed by this court could not be complied with.
It is seen that as per the RTI reply dated 09.06.2016, the same discloses that total number of 132 Ex-Servicemen candidates were found eligible for appearing in the written examination and although 48 posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen (Armed Force), the said reply indicates that only the petitioner was the sole empanelled candidate in the Ex-Servicemen category. On perusal of the Recruitment Advertisement No. 2 of 2015 in Note No.3 appended thereto, reads as follows:
"48 posts have been reserved for Ex- Serviceman. In case of sufficient number of eligible and suitable Ex-Servicemen are not available then candidates other than Ex-Servicemen may be considered."
The said language indicates that there would be priority in giving appointment to the persons selected under the category of Ex-Servicemen and only when suitable Ex-Servicemen candidates are not available, other candidates shall be considered for appointment. Accordingly, it appears that 48 numbers of posts earmarked as reserved for Ex-Servicemen, for prior preference of the Ex-Servicemen before other candidates are considered for appointment in such reserved post.
On perusal of the said Recruitment Advertisement No. 2 of 2015, while the number of posts reserved for S.C., S.T., O.B.C., U.R. and PwD are indicated by showing the breakup of reserved posts but the said Recruitment Advertisement No. 2 of 2015 does not indicate which of the 48 posts have been reserved for Ex-Servicemen. Accordingly, this court is of the view that as in the Recruitment Advertisement No. 2 of 2015, the authorities have not indicated which of the various posts are covered by the said 48 numbers of posts reserved for Ex-Servicemen and that the candidature of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground that the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) was not reserved for Ex-Servicemen it would be safe to draw an inference that one of the 16 posts of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) was reserved for being filled up under ex-serviceman category.) Further, as the RTI reply indicates that the name of the petitioner was empanelled under the Ex-Servicemen category for the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations), it would carry the meaning that one of the posts of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) was earmarked for Ex-Servicemen Category. Accordingly, the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the petitioner's performance was not sufficient enough for final selection is not sustainable and this court is of the opinion that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not sustainable because when 48 vacancies were earmarked under Ex-Serviceman category, the petitioner had right to be considered for appointment in any one of the 16 vacancies for the post of Junior Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations).
Accordingly, this court is inclined to direct the respondents i.e. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Assam Asset, Nazira to appoint the petitioner in the post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/ HV Operations) and if there is no vacancy available for such posts, then the petitioner may be appointed in any other post of A-I level that may arise in their establishment. This direction has been issued because this Court by order dated 20.07.2016 had directed the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 not to fill up one post of Jr. Motor Vehicle Driver (Winch/HV Operations) in the establishment of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Assam Asset, Nazira, but the said post has been filled up. Accordingly, as and any other vacancy of A-I level posts arises in the establishment of the respondents, the case of the petitioner shall be considered according to his qualification.
This writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.
The Rule is made absolute in terms of the order.
No cost.