Vishnu Prasad Kaushal And Others vs Union Of India And Others

Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

The applicants who are 18 in number applied for the post of Scientist ‗B‘ in response to vacancy advertisement No. 05/09/2016/NDL/SER and

were selected for the same. An offer of appointment was made to applicant no. 1 vide letter dated 12.06.2017 and accepted by him on 10.07.2017.

Similar offers and acceptances were made regarding the other applicants. The recruitment rules were notified on 20.11.2017 though they were in the

offing for a considerable period before that.

The matter under dispute is that the applicants claim they are Group ‗A‘ gazetted whereas as per the respondents they are only equivalent to

Group ‗A‘.

It is the contention of the applicants that as per the advertisement, the post of Scientist-B was classified as Group ‗A‘ Gazetted and the pay

matrix was also given. They have also stated that letter dated 03.08.2017 by which they were called for medical examination also lists the post as

Scientistâ€"B Group ‗A‘ Gazetted. They have claimed that the recruitment rules under which they have been made equivalent to Group ‗A‘

gazetted in Central Government, came much later, and as such, they are entitled to be given the designation of Group ‗A‘ gazetted.

The respondents have denied the claim of the applicants and stated that on behalf of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

(MEITY), Advertisement No 05/09/2016/NDL/SER was issued by National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) for filling

up Scientist ‗B‘ in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, its attached offices and statutory organisations i.e. Standardisation,

Testing and Quality Certificate (STQC) and Directorate of Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (ICERT). ICERT is a statutory body of the

Ministry and its posts of Scientist ‗B‘ are equivalent to Group ‗A‘. They have further stated that it has been clearly laid down in the recruitment

rules as well, and was made amply clear in the offer of appointment which has the following clause:-

“Your appointment is in Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (ICERT), a Statutory Organisation under MeitY therefore, you would be

governed by the rules as applicable for employees of ICERT as per rules/regulations to be framed for them from time to time and on the basis of any

such decisions/orders/notifications of the Central Govt./MeitY issued from time to time governing service conditions of the employees of Statutory

Bodies/ICERT and you will not claim for any parity with Central Govt. Employees.â€​

As per the respondents, vide this clause not only were the applicants to be governed by the rules as applicable to employees to be framed from time

to time and on the basis of any decisions/orders/notifications of the Central Government / MEITY issued from time to time, but they would also not

claim any parity with Central Government employees. This offer of appointment was accepted by the applicants, therefore now they cannot turn

around and claim equivalence. Additionally, it has also been stated, since DoP&T in its letter dated 10.12.2018, has clearly said that these posts are

not under Union of India and the RRs/SRs framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, therefore, they cannot be classified as gazetted Central Civil

posts / General Central Service. Further, the classification of non-gazetted is not applicable to posts of autonomous/statutory bodies.

The respondents have further contended that since there were no recruitment rules, the advertisements were issued on the basis of Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs) which have been modified from time to time and enable such sort of recruitments to be undertaken.

Respondents have clarified that Central Government employees get the benefit of CGHS as well as Government accommodation under GPRA. As

per the existing instructions of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare â€" the nodal Ministry dealing with CGHS, the employees of statutory

bodies are not entitled to avail CGHS facilities. However, as per the respondents, they had made efforts with the nodal ministry for extension of

CGHS facilities to ICERT employees, and on its own a medical scheme has also been approved by MEITY which is under vetting at the moment, for

grant of basic medical facilities on the lines of UIDAI. The other benefit which would accrue to the applicants if they were given the status of Group

‗A‘, would be eligibility for Government accommodation under GPRA for which they will have to be included in the list of eligible offices by the

Cabinet Committee of Accommodation. A proposal sent for this purpose was not approved by the Cabinet Committee of Accommodation. Ministry of

Housing and Urban Development has requested for a consolidated proposal from all the Ministries/departments, and a proposal has accordingly been

sent to the said Ministry by the respondents.

The respondents have further stated that the matter of classification of posts is under consideration of DoP&T, which decision would be taken with

wider policy considerations in mind and the respondents could take a decision only thereafter.

Heard Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for applicants and Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

It is clear from the offer of appointment that the applicants were not being treated equivalent to Central Government employees. The said offer

nowhere contains the mention of ―Groupâ€"Aǁ but simply designates them as Scientist-B. This offer has also been duly accepted by the applicants.

Therefore, there is no question of going back on the terms. Furthermore, as clarified by the respondents, the matter of classification of posts of all

autonomous organisations is under consideration of DoP&T which is a major policy issue and can only be decided by the respondent-organisation after

DoP&T takes a view on it.

The recruitment rules which were notified on 20.11.2017 and must have been in the offing for quite some time clearly specify that Scientist B is

equivalent to the Group ‗A‘ gazetted post in the Central Government. This, read with the offer of appointment, which states that the appointee

would be governed by the rules as applicable for employees of ICERT as per rules/regulations to be framed for them from time to time, and on the

basis of any such decisions/orders/ notification of the Central Government/MIETY issued from time to time governing service conditions of the

employees of statutory bodies/ICERT, will not support the claim for parity with (201) central government employees. Therefore, the position is

abundantly clear that the applicants went into the appointment with their eyes open and it was quite fairly specified upfront by the respondents that the

applicants were not to claim any parity with Central Government employees and no mention of Group ‗A‘ gazetted was made in the offer of

appointment or in the recruitment rules.

Additionally, the respondents have taken steps to give other facilities related to medical benefits and GPRA accommodation both of which are

ongoing and involve policy issues.

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed two judgments i.e., Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra

University Civil Appeal No. 947/1975 and Judgment of Hon‘ble High Court in Sangeeta Shrivastava Vs. U. N. Singh And Ors.

These rulings pertain to candidates who did not fulfil eligibility conditions for admission to a higher academic programme but had been admitted at the

initial stage and were subsequently disqualified, which situation is totally different to the present case. Therefore the rulings do not help the

applicants‘ case at all.

In the light of the above, this O.A has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.