The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti and The Director of Education, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti vs Pathummabi B

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent. Respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) are before us who are none other than the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti and the Director of Eduction, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. It is not in dispute that, by notification dated 01/09/2004, applications were called for to the post of Nursery Trained Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 against three existing vacancies. It is also not in dispute that on 16/4/2005 a selection list was published. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the respondent who was an applicant before CAT was kept in the waiting list as per order dated 16/4/2005 as shown in Annexure A2.

According to the applicant, as per the Tribunal, candidates in the waiting list should be accommodated in the vacancy that arose during the recruitment year as per the guidelines. The contention of the respondents before CAT was that the candidates appearing in the waiting list could be considered only if the candidates in the main list did not report for duty for one reason or the other and therefore according to them, once the three candidates reported for duty as per the main list, question of considering anyone in the waiting list would not arise. Hence the applicant was not entitled for consideration in respect of vacancy that arose on 01/05/2005. Admittedly, there are no rules or regulations which indicate how vacancy should be notified or a provision notifying vacancies which would arise in the future by restricting to a particular period. We have only the guidelines which cover the dispute in question. It is not in dispute, in the absence of any legislation, the guidelines could be taken as the guiding factor to guide the recruitments that take place in the appellants'' institution. Guidelines are at Ext.P2 which was marked as Annexure A5 before the Tribunal. The relevant paragraphs in the guidelines are at 4(i) and 4(xii) which read as under:

4(i) They should assess carefully the number of vacancies required to be filled during a particular recruitment year, with due regard to all relevant consideration, including the vacancies likely to occur as a result of retirement promotions etc. and then notify all such vacancies to the local Employment Exchange.

4(xii) The Select List of Candidates should be prepared to the extent of the number of vacancies notified to the Employment Exchange. A Reserve List also could be prepared if found necessary, in the order of merit. However, such list should not exceed 10% of the notified vacancy including vacancies certified by the Department to be likely to occur in foreseeable future to meet requirements under unforeseeable situations. This would ensure consideration of new eligible candidates who are meritorious, in further recruitment process.

The entire controversy revolves round one particular word at 4(i) "recruitment year". Apparently, there is no definition of "recruitment year" forthcoming from Annexure A5. The Tribunal tried to analyse what exactly this recruitment year would mean from the context of the guidelines and proceeded to discuss the same at paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. Though from reading the above paragraphs, according to the CAT, the recruitment year in the present case would be from 01/10/2004 to 30/09/2005 or 01/01/2005 to 31/12/2005. The discussion at paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 also indicates that the Tribunal was persuaded by the date of notification to decide as to what period would be recruitment year. Apparently, recruitment was for Nursery teachers and so far as education is concerned, academic year would be the guiding factor. Even otherwise, reading guidelines at 4(i), it refers to "during a particular recruitment year" the recruitment notification in question is dated 01/09/2004. Therefore that year has to be taken as the particular recruitment year and by no stretch of imagination it can be go beyond 2004. If we take academic year as a guiding factor, it normally starts from June of a particular year to the end of March next year. Therefore the recruitment year with reference to the context as per the guidelines means only the year in which the recruitments came to be notified or the academic year. That is from June 2004 to 31/03/2005 or January 2004 to December 2004. In that view of the matter, giving a description of recruitment year from the date of notification calling for the applications till next date, a provisional date, may not lead to any reasonable conclusion. Therefore from the guidelines we have to refer to the same as either entire 2004 or academic year 2004-2005. Even otherwise, according to the petitioners all the matters in the department are normally considered on financial year basis which would mean 01/04/2004 to 31/03/2005. Viewed from any of these periods, case of the respondent/applicant will not fall within the definition of "recruitment year" as per the guidelines of the petitioners. Hence the stand of the petitioners before CAT that the vacancy arose on 01/05/2005 could not be considered in the notification dated 01/09/2004 is justified and accepted. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the CAT in O.A. No. 664/2005 dated 08/06/2007.