G.Suresh v. Electronic Corporation of India Ltd.

Order

The petitioner herein was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the office of the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi on 30.09.1987. From 7.9.2000 to 6.9.2004, he was sent to Indian Oil Corporation Limited on deputation as Deputy Manager (Vigilance). Thereafter, from 14.10.2004 to 30.04.2008 he worked with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission on deputation as Vigilance Officer. After that he has been posted to his parent department as a Section Officer and he is continuing as such. While so, the respondent – Electronic Corporation of India Limited – issued a notification in May, 2008 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts including one post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. Having applied for the said post, the petitioner appeared for interview before the Selection Committee on

10.07.2008. On 1.8.2008 he was intimated by the respondent Corporation through e-mail that he had been selected for the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. However, there was no further communication from the respondent Corporation. In the circumstances, the petitioner made an application on 3.1.2009 under Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter he also invoked the remedy of Appeal. Ultimately, the Note sheets of selection process were furnished to the petitioner which revealed that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and his candidature was recommended for appointment to the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. However, instead of issuing an appointment order, the respondent Corporation had cancelled the entire selection process and decided to re-advertise the post.

Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent Corporation, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in cancelling the selection process for the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer as per the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. It is contended by the petitioner that there is absolutely no justification for cancelling the entire selection process after the approval of selection which has also been communicated to the selected candidates. It is alleged that the respondent Corporation had resorted to the extreme step of cancellation of selection process since some of the candidates of its choice did not qualify on merit. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it is stated that though the name of the petitioner along with the other selected candidate was recommended by the Selection Committee, the said recommendations of the Selection Committee were not approved by the competent authority – Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation - since none of the candidates satisfied the required period of experience in relevant field. Unless the recommendations of the Selection Committee are approved, the mere recommendation does not confer any right on the candidate selected in the interview to claim appointment. As a matter of fact, the action of the Chief Vigilance Officer/Chairman of the Selection committee in conveying the recommendations of the Committee to the concerned candidates even before the recommendations are approved by the competent authority is not in accordance with law. It is further explained that as per the notification, the period of experience in the relevant field has been prescribed as 15 years out of which one should have 10 years experience in investigations of complaints, frauds, thefts and misappropriation, etc. Since none of the candidates, including the petitioner, had satisfied the said requirement of experience, the competent authority did not approve the selection committee’s recommendations and had decided to re-advertise the post having opined that granting relaxation with regard to experience impermissible. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The advertisement under which the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer has been notified shows that so far as the experience is concerned one must have 15 years experience, as under : “A Post-graduate/MBA/Degree in Law with experience in investigation/Vigilance Wings of State or Central Police, Government Departments, Banks, Insurance Companies, PSUs, etc., are with similar experience in reputed private organizations. Should have minimum 10 years experience in investigation of complaints, frauds, thefts and misappropriation, etc.” A plain reading of the above notification makes it clear that out of 15 years experience the candidate should have minimum 10 years experience investigation of complaints, frauds, thefts and misappropriation, etc. The petitioner’s experience as pleaded by him in the writ petition is as under: (1) from 30.11.1987 to 01.09.2000 – worked with Central Vigilance Commission in the post of Assistant/UDC/LDC. (2) from 07.09.2000 to 06.09.2004 – worked with Indian Oil Corporation Limited on deputation in the post of Deputy Manager (Vigilance). (3) from 14.10.2004 to 30.04.2008 – worked with Oil and Natural Gas Commission in the post of Vigilance Officer. According to the petitioner, he has satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification since he has been working in the Vigilance Departments in different capacities for the past 20 years i.e., right from the year 1987. However, the same was not accepted by the Chairman & Managing Director of the respondent Corporation on the ground that out of his 20 years service he had actually dealt with investigations only for a period of 7 years and 10 months. Since he failed to satisfy the minimum 10 years experience in investigation of complaints and etc., and there was shortfall of 2 years and 2 months, the competent authority found that he was not suitable to hold the post. Accordingly, the petitioner’s selection was not approved. On a careful consideration of the material on record, particularly in view of the admitted fact that from 30.11.1987 to 1.9.2000 the petitioner was only holding a post of Assistant/UDC/LDC, I am unable to find fault with the respondent Corporation in declining to take into consideration the said period for computation of the prescribed experience. It is true that the petitioner had worked with the Central Vigilance Commission during the said period, but apparently he was only discharging Ministerial/Clerical duties, which did not satisfy the experience specified in the notification. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated

17.6.2008, vehemently contended that since no such objection was raised by the Selection Committee and particularly in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner was included in List-C which shows that no relaxation was granted to the petitioner with regard to any qualification the respondent Corporation ought to have issued the appointment order. The Screening report dated 17.6.2008 placed before this Court shows that altogether 19 applications were received for the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. Out of that, 6 candidates were categorized in List-C stating that their eligibility is doubtful and to be decided in final screening whether to be called or not for selections. The petitioner’s name is shown at Sl.No.6 in List-C and though the relaxation recommended for the petitioner has not been specified, it is clear that all the candidates shown in List-C have been allowed relaxations. Thereafter the interviews were held on 10th & 11th of July, 2008 and the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated

12.7.2008 shows that the petitioner’s name was recommended for the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. However it is a mere recommendation and is not conclusive unless and until it is approved by the competent authority. The record shows that the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, who is the competent authority, having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of 10 years experience in investigations of complaints, frauds, thefts and misappropriation, etc., thought it fit not to approve the selection of the petitioner and directed to re-notify the post. The said decision of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever since it is clear that the petitioner did not possess the requisite period of experience. Merely because the selection committee recommended his name, the same does not confer upon him any legally enforceable right to claim appointment. The petitioner’s claim that the petitioner’s selection was approved on 22.7.2008 by the respondent is factually incorrect and without any basis. The record placed before this Court reveals that no such approval has been granted by the competent authority on

22.7.2008. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Dt. 07.09.2009 ______________ G. ROHINI, J.