Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dr Vr Bapa Rao vs Public Enterprises Selection Board on 21 January, 2025
APHC010515542023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26646/2023
Between:
Dr Vr Bapa Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Public Enterprises Selection Board and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A V S LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C V R RUDRA PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI
3. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
4. T V SRI DEVI
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents
1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for interview scheduled on 11.10.2023
for the post of Director (Operations), Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited
Page 2 of 14
(RINL) as arbitrary and illegal and to nullify the selection of 3rd
respondent vide Minute No.1 of the PESB Meeting No.33 of 2024 held on
21.05.2024 and consequently direct the respondents to entertain the
petitioner to the said post.
2. Initially, the writ petition was filed challenging the action of
respondents 1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for an interview. Later,
upon the selection of the third respondent to the post, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.4 of 2024 seeking an amendment of prayer to nullify the selection
of the third respondent. The said petition was ordered on 18.11.2024.
3. a) Averments in brief, in the affidavit, are that the petitioner joined
RINL on 16.12.1987 as Management Trainee and worked in different
departments i.e. Marketing, Research and Developments under Works
Division, Vigilance Department, Works Contract dealing with contracts of
Operation and Maintenance of VSP, Forged Wheel Plant, Lalganj and
Projects Division handling all the operation and Maintenance of FWP and
also Projects of RINL.
b) While the petitioner worked at Research and Development, he
was deputed to the Vigilance Department vide Office Order No.PI/ES-
I/03/2007/1032 dated 31.10.2007 (Ex.P3) by maintaining a line of
promotion in the parent department. The petitioner was reverted back to
the Works Division and posted at Works Contracts vide Office Order
No.18/HR/EE/TO-04/344 dated 29.03.2018 and the petitioner was
relieved from the Vigilance Department vide Order Ref.No.Vig.B4A/1194
dated 28.07.2018 (Ex.P4). The petitioner was transferred to Forged
Wheel Plant, Lalganj of RINL vide Office Order No.20/HR-EE/TO-19/e-
dak, dated 30.05.2020 (Ex.P5). The petitioner was associated with the
operation and maintenance of the plant from the posting at Research and
Page 3 of 14
Development in 2007. Thus, he had 16 years of experience in plant
operations and maintenance.
c) Be that as it may, the 1st respondent issued an advertisement
calling for applications to the post of Director (Operations) in RINL
(Ex.P1). The petitioner applied for the same, however, his name was not
shortlisted for an interview. The 4th respondent, in fact, recommended
the candidature of the petitioner after due certification to the post of
Director (Projects). The petitioner was declared, as the senior most,
among the internal candidates, who submitted applications to the post of
Director (Operations).
d) The 3rd respondent wrongly claimed that he worked as Deputy
General Manager at RINL in his application. The 1st respondent failed to
verify the same from the 4th respondent before short-listing. The
appointment of 3rd respondent as the Director (Production) in M/s
Braithwaite from 31.10.2018 to 27.05.2023 is tenure-based contract
employment. The 3rd respondent lost his contract post after completion of
tenure. The 3rd respondent claimed that he worked as an incharge
Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Braithwaite from 28.05.2023 to
11.08.2023. The post of Executive Director (Operations) under the 3rd
respondent was created and advertised on 14.10.2023 for the 3rd
respondent’s continuation. An enquiry by the Vigilance, Railway Board is
pending and thus, the selection of 3rd respondent is contrary to the
recruitment notification and hence, it is liable to be set aside.
4. The 3rd respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking impleadment
and the same as allowed on 22.04.2024. The 4th respondent filed
I.A.No.5 of 2024 seeking impleadment and the same as allowed on
18.11.2024.
Page 4 of 14
5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit along with a vacate stay
petition before the amendment of prayer. It was contended, interalia, that
by the time of Ex.P1 notification, the 3rd respondent was working as
Director (Production) M/s Braithwaite and Company. For more than 10
years from the date of application, he was working at senior levels in the
areas of Production/Operations/Maintenance in reputed organizations in
RINL and M/s Braithwaite. He had more than 5 years of integrated steel
plant operations and maintenance experience from RINL out of the 10
years preceding application. Respondents 1 and 2 shortlisted 12
candidates and called the 3rd respondent for an interview through
proceedings dated 27.09.2023 and the name of the 3rd respondent was
figured at S.No.9. The 3rd respondent participated in the interview held
on 11.12.2023 through video conferencing. Though the result of the
interview ought to have been declared immediately, however, it was not
declared due to the pendency of the writ petition. Later, the application
was filed for impleadment.
6. After amending the prayer to nullify the appointment of 3rd
respondent, the 3rd respondent filed another counter affidavit reiterating
the averments in the original counter affidavit. In the additional counter
affidavit, it was mentioned that 12 candidates were shortlisted by the 1st
respondent as per its guidelines. Out of 12 applicants, 6 were from
internal applicants; 2 from sectoral applicants; 2 from external applicants
and 2 from Central Government/Private Sector/State-PSEs. Since the 3rd
respondent satisfied the requisite qualification and performed well in the
interview, he was selected. The post of 3rd respondent at M/s Braithwaite
is a tenure post for 5 years and not a contract post. No vigilance cases
are pending against the 3rd respondent and eventually, prayed to dismiss
the writ petition.
Page 5 of 14
7. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit before the amendment
of the prayer. After amending the prayer, no separate counter was filed
by the 1st respondent.
8. a) In the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, it was
contended, interalia, that in the advertisement for the post of Director
(Operations), RINL, one should have at least 5 out of 10 years of
experience/exposure at senior level in the areas of
production/operations/maintenance in the organizations of repute. The
applicant with experience in Operations and Maintenance of integrated
steel plants/projects will have an added advantage. The petitioner
possessed 3 years of mandatory experience and hence, he was not
shortlisted for interview. Though the petitioner indicated in his job profile
regarding experience in Marketing/RNIL/Work Contracts/ Vigilance
Department, however, the petitioner does not have the requisite
mandatory experience as per the job description in the advertisement.
As per the job description, the mandatory experience for the post is “the
applicant should have at least five out of ten years of
experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of
production/operation/maintenance in an organization of repute”. After
scrutinizing the application filled up by the petitioner including the
remarks of the nodal officer, the same was forwarded. It was mentioned
that the petitioner possessed 3 years mandatory experience. The nodal
officer remarked that the petitioner had experience/exposure in the Work
Contract/Forged Wheel Plant and Vigilance.
b) The 1st respondent, in fact, sought clarification from the 4th
respondent-RINL about the experience possessed by all the internal
candidates including the petitioner. The 4th respondent submitted the
Page 6 of 14
particulars, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had experience
of 3 years in project areas during the last 10 years. A few other external
candidates from the RINL were not shortlisted on similar grounds and
there is no arbitrariness in short-listing of candidates for the post of
Director (Operations).
c) The petitioner is the senior most applicant in the external
category of eligible criteria in terms of educational qualifications,
however, he did not possess the requisite 5 years mandatory experience
in the areas of production/operations/maintenance as per Clause-III (4) of
the job description of advertisement for the post and eventually prayed to
dismiss the writ petition.
9. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was
contended, interalia, that the petitioner worked in Marketing Department
from 16.12.1987 to 21.04.2006; Works-R&D from 22.04.2006 to
04.11.2007; Vigilance Department from 05.11.2007 to 27.07.2018; Works
Contracts Department from 28.07.2018 to 29.05.2020; Projects-HQ from
30.05.2020 to 17.06.2020; Projects – Forged Wheel Plant, Lalgunj from
18.06.2020 to 01.11.2022 and as Projects in charge from 02.11.2022 to
till the date of application for the post of Director (Operations), RINL.
b) The petitioner worked in the R & D Department for a period of
around 1½ years. LoP was maintained in the parent department of R &
D during his posting in the Vigilance department. The Vigilance
Department is a separate department headed by the Chief Vigilance
Officer and the functions carried out by the Vigilance Department are
detailed in the Vigilance Manual. The functions to be performed by the
Vigilance department are specific in nature.
Page 7 of 14
c) The petitioner is the senior most in the grade amongst the
internal candidates, who applied for the post of Director (Operations).
Vide circular dated 18.11.2019, the designations of the executives were
rationalized with the approval of RINL’s Board. Accordingly, the
designation of executive in E-6 Grade was renamed from Assistant
General Manager to Deputy General Manager with effect from
08.11.2019 without change in the grade and pay scale. The application
of the 3rd respondent for the position of Director, RINL was not rooted
through RINL and hence, the RINL had no occasion to verify the
application of the 3rd respondent.
10. Rejoinder, reply affidavit and surrejoinder affidavits were filed by
the petitioner elaborating the contents in the writ affidavit and also in
respect of the experience of the unofficial respondent. It was pleaded
that the 1st respondent shortlisted one Sri Gowtham, General Manager
(Raw Material) and Sri P.Srinivasulu, General Manager (RM &HP),
without short-listing the petitioner, though he is eligible. A different set of
approaches was adopted in respect of notification for the post of Director
(in charge), Bokaro Steel Plant and Director (in charge) Rourkela Steel
Plant. It was further pleaded about 3rd respondent’s ineligibility for
selection.
11. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by
Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri C.V.Rudra Prasad,
learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2, Smt.T.V.Sreedevi,
learned counsel for 3rd respondent and Sri Kiran Kumar, learned counsel
for 4th respondent.
12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
averments in the affidavit and rejoinders would further contend that the
Page 8 of 14
petitioner satisfied requisite experience as per Clause-III (4) of the job
description. In counting, 5 years out of 10 years, the respondents failed
to observe that the petitioner’s line of promotion was continued in R&D,
though the petitioner was deputed to vigilance. Despite forwarding the
application by CMD, the case of the petitioner was not considered. In the
notification, Clause-III (4) does not contain the word “last” and the
experience of the petitioner in the Vigilance should have been taken into
consideration. The 3rd respondent’s appointment in M/s Braithwaite for
five years is on contract and hence, he cannot be treated as a regular
employee and hence, he is not eligible. Though the petitioner is eligible,
he was not considered, however, 3rd respondent’s ineligibility was
considered. The post of Assistant General Manager was re-designated
as Deputy General Manager, after two years of relieving of 3rd
respondent. The 1st respondent did not call for any particulars from RINL
regarding the 3rd respondent’s experience.
13. Learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and respondents 3 & 4
would submit that having pleaded bias, the petitioner failed to implead
any authority as a party respondent to the writ petition. Initially, the writ
petition was filed to declare the action of respondents in not short-listing
the petitioner for the interview and later, an amendment was made to the
prayer. The petitioner failed to fulfil the specific criteria. After following
the procedure, the 3rd respondent was selected. The 3rd respondent
made an application to the post on 01.06.2023 and the interview was
conducted on 11.10.2023. The 3rd respondent’s appointment at M/s
Braithwaite is not a contract and it is a tenure post for 5 years. In fact, the
3rd respondent was appointed at M/s Braithwaite in pursuance of the
advertisement and the selection made by 1st respondent.
Page 9 of 14
14. Now, the points for consideration are:
1) Whether non-short listing the name of the petitioner for
the interview to the post of Director (Operations) RINL
in pursuance of advertisement (Ex.P1) issued by 1st
respondent, is illegal and arbitrary?
2) Whether the selection of the 3rd respondent by the 1st
respondent to the post of Director (Operations), RINL
needs to be nullified?
15. Since the relevant facts are narrated supra, to avoid repetition, the
same are not reiterated.
16. Ex.P1 is the advertisement issued by the 1st respondent calling for
applications to the post of Director (Operations), RINL. Clause III
prescribes the eligibility. Clause-III (2) prescribes employment status and
Clause-III (4) prescribes experience. The employment status prescribed
reads thus:
“The applicant must, on the date of application, as well as on the date of
interview, be employed in a regular capacity – and not in a contractual/ad-
hoc capacity – in one of the following:-
(a) Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) (including a full-time
functional Director in the Board of a CPSE);
17. Regarding the experience, in the notification, it was mentioned as
follows:
“The applicant should have at least five out of ten years of
experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of
production/operation/maintenance in an organization of repute.
Page 10 of 14
Applicants with experience in operation and maintenance of
integrated steel plants/projects will have added advantage.”
18. Ex.P2 is the application made by the petitioner to the post. In
Page-18 of the papers annexed to the writ affidavit, the petitioner
mentioned the experience in different departments. The 1st respondent
requested the RINL to produce the duties and responsibilities of all
applicants at various positions in the company during the last 10 years to
ascertain the experience requirement for the post of Director
(Operations), RINL vis-à-vis experience filled up by the candidates
(including the petitioner). The information was forwarded from RINL to
the 1st respondent. No doubt, the petitioner stood at serial No.1 in the list
forwarded. Ex.P10, the petitioner for the post of the Director
(Operations), wherein in the remarks column regarding experience, it
was mentioned as follows:
“He is having experience/exposure of 5 years 2 months in Vigilance;
1 year 10 months in Work Contracts and 3 years in Projects area
during last 10 years”
19. As per the notification, one should have at least five out of ten
years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of
production/operation/maintenance. Ex.P10, the application relating to the
petitioner gains significance in adjudicating the issue. It discerns that the
petitioner has fulfilled eligible criteria regarding age, qualification and pay
scales. However, regarding experience, he has experience/exposure in
Vigilance/Works Contract/Project Areas including FWP of 3 years during
the last 10 years. In Ex.P10, it was further mentioned that as per Clause
No.3.7 of the Guidelines on the subject matter, in exceptional cases and
Page 11 of 14
in the interest of the Company, applications in relaxation of any of these
Rules may be forwarded. In the proposal, it was mentioned as follows:
“In view of the position brought out above, the proposal for
forwarding the application of Dr.V.R.Bapa Rao, Chief General
Manager (Proj), I/c, E.No.104401 for the post of Director
(Operations), RINL to PESB is put up for kind consideration and
approval of CMD with relaxation in experience criteria as
mentioned in Para-6. On approval, the application will be forwarded
to PESB in online mode with the comments of “The Applicant has
experience/exposure in Works Contracts; Forged Wheel Plant and
Vigilance Department for the last 10 years”.
20. On page No.70 of the material papers filed along with an amended
copy of the writ affidavit, the email forwarded discloses that the
applications of the petitioner along with 4 others were forwarded, even
though none of the 5 candidates fulfilled the experience criteria, with the
approval of CMD. Thus, a perusal of Ex.P10 filed by the petitioner itself
manifests that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification
of 5 years out of 10 years of experience as per Clause-III (4) of the job
description.
21. The 1st respondent prescribed eligibility to select the candidate for
the post of Director (Operations). An ineligible candidate i.e. without
fulfilling all the requisite qualifications prescribed, cannot contend that he
is suitable for the post and hence, he should be called for an interview.
22. Whether the experience in Vigilance is to be reckoned with that of
experience in Production/Operations/Maintenance, it is for the 1st
respondent to resolve that issue. The 1st respondent being the
recruitment agency detailed in the advertisement that one should have at
Page 12 of 14
least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in
areas of production/operation/maintenance. The contention of learned
senior counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner worked in
Vigilance, his line of promotion was maintained in R&D department and
hence, the experience of the petitioner must have been be reckoned, this
Court is not persuaded by the said the submission and it falls to ground.
The 1st respondent, the recruitment agency, considered all these aspects
and did not shortlist the name of the petitioner for the interview.
23. The Apex Court judgment cited by the learned senior counsel in
Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and
others1, regarding the change of Rules after the game started, has no
application to the facts of this case. In the case at hand, the Rules have
not been changed. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus:
“Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the
commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway
through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the
advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if
such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the
change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution
and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness”.
24. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, no Rules were changed
after the advertisement.
25. The other contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is
that the 3rd respondent is not eligible and hence, his selection is liable to
be set aside, this Court does not find any merit in the said contention, in
the absence of any material on record that the appointment of the 3rd
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184
Page 13 of 14
respondent as Director (Production), M/s Braithwaite is on a contract
basis. The 1st respondent shortlisted the candidates, those who had
fulfilled the requisite qualifications including experience etc., as per the
notification and finally selected the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent
does not have experience and is not qualified is a seriously disputed
question of fact. In the absence of any undisputed material, this Court
normally shall not adjudicate such issues.
26. It is a settled principle of law that the Court while exercising the
jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India, normally shall not
adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
27. The reliance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the
guidelines regarding Board Level Appointments in Central Public Sector
Enterprise, in Chapter-4, which speaks about the tenure of Board Level
Appointments in CPSEs and extension in Tenure, will not improve the
case of the petitioner in a way.
28. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that one should be
employed in a regular capacity and not in a contractual/ad-hoc capacity.
The 3rd respondent while working in RINL, in pursuance of the
advertisement issued by the 1st respondent, applied and got selected for
the post of Director (Production) in M/s Braithwaite and the tenure of that
post is 5 years. The appointment of 3rd respondent in M/s Braithwaite
vide No.2017/E(O)II/40/4 dated 05.10.2018 reads as follows:
“The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) has approved the
appointment of Shri Salim G Purushothaman, AGM, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam
Ltd., (RINL) to the post of Director (Production), Braithwaite & Company
Ltd., (BCL), in the scale of pay of Rs.65,000-75,000/- (IDA Scale – pre-
revised) for a period of five years from the date of his assumption of charge
Page 14 of 14of the post or till the date of superannuation or until further orders
whichever is the earliest. The date of assumption of charge by the officer
may please be advised.”
29. Thus, the proceedings issued by the Under Secretary (Deputation)
of, the Railway Board did not indicate that the appointment of the
petitioner as Director (Production) is on contract or ad-hoc. The 3rd
respondent is holding the post on the date of application as well as on
the date of the interview. The 3rd respondent applied on 01.06.2023 and
the interview was conducted on 11.10.2023. The 1st respondent, after
considering, all the facets selected the 3rd respondent to the post of
Director (Operations), RINL and hence it cannot be nullified.
30. Learned senior counsel by placing reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,
Vizianagaram and others Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi2, would contend
that since the 3rd respondent does not have requisite qualifications and it
amounts to fraud, has no application to the facts of this case.
31. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in
the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
32. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. However, no costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
2
(1990) 3 SCC 655
[ad_1]
Source link