Central Administrative Tribunal - ChandigarhDr. Kiran Kumar Ekka vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 29 July, 2016CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH


ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 063/00080/2016

Date of filing: 22.07.2016
    Order reserved on:  27.07.2016

Chandigarh,  this the 29th  day of July, 2016

CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) &
	      HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)                                
                                                  
Dr. Kiran Kumar Ekka, age 34 years, s/o Sh. Rabindra Nath Ekka, C/o Master Colony, Rajgangpur, District Sundergarh, Odisha-770017.
.APPLICANT

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI MANOJ BAGGA PROXY FOR SHRI ASHOK VERMA

VERSUS

1. Union of India through its Secretary to Ministry of HRD, 311-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 
2. National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, through its Registrar, District Hamirpur, H.P.
3. Ganesh Ranakoti s/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sharma.
4. Ashwani Tayal s/o Sh. Shyam Lal Gupta.
5.	 Arun Rehal S/O Sh. Ram Pal Rehal. 

(Respondents 3 to 4 working as Lecturers (on contract basis) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at NIT Hamirpur (H.P.). 

.RESPONDENTS
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-Dr. Kiran Kumar Ekka applicant, who is Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering, applied for the post of Lecturer on contract basis in Mechanical Engineering in National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur- respondent no. 2 pursuant to advertisement dated 15.6.2016 (Annexure A-2) and schedule of walk-in-interview Annexure A-3. Recruitment was to be done through Walk-in-Interview. The applicant was, however, not selected as per list of selected candidates (Annexure A- 4). On the other hand, respondents 3 to 5 have been selected in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.2.	By filing this O.A., the applicant has sought quashing of the list of selected candidates (Annexure A- 4) specially for the Department of Mechanical Engineering and has sought direction for giving appointment to the applaint and other candidates having Ph. D Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Direction is also sought for not giving appointment to respondents 3 to 5.3.	Case of the applicant is that candidates with Ph. D Degree were to be preferred. The applicant has Ph.D. Degree whereas respondents 3 to 5 do not hold Ph. D Degree.4.	We have heard counsel for the applicant on the question of admission of the O.A. and perused the case file.5.	Counsel for the applicant contended that as per schedule (Annexure A-3) for Walk-in-Interview, the candidates with Ph.D Degree were to be preferred and, therefore, the applicant and other candidates having Ph.D Degree should have been selected as against selection of respondents 3 to 5 who do not hold Ph.D Degree.6.	We have carefully considered the matter.  As per condition in schedule Annexure A-3,  only preference was to be given to the candidates with Ph.D. Degree. It is, however, not stipulated that precedence shall be given to them. In other words, it is not stipulated that in the first instance, only candidates with Ph.D Degree will be selected and if no such candidates is available, only then candidates with Master Degree will be selected.  Had it been so, then the applicant could possibly claim the relief sought by him. However, there is no such stipulation in the Interview Schedule  (Annexure A-3) . Moreover, if aforesaid contention of the applicant were to be upheld, then there would have been no necessity of Walk-in-Interview and the candidates could have been selected on the basis of their academic qualifications only. Academic qualification is only one aspect of the matter. Suitability of the candidates was also to be adjudged and assessed on the basis of walk-in-interview. If inspite of some preference given to Ph.D. candidates,  candidates not holding Ph.D. Degree have been selected, the same is not vitiated merely on this ground.  The suitability and merit of the candidates had to be adjudged by the Selection Committee comprising of experts. Their opinion regarding inter-se suitability and merit of the candidates cannot be substituted by the Tribunal with its own opinion. It may be mentioned that for recruitment in the department of Architecture, it is provided that if Ph.D/ M. Architecture  candidates are not available, then candidates having B. Architecture may also be considered. It would mean that in the first instance, only candidates holding Ph.D/M. Architecture  Degree were to be considered and on non-availability thereof only, candidates having B. Architecture  could also be considered. However, there is no such similar stipulation regarding any other department that if Ph. D candidates are not available,  only then M. Tech. candidates will be considered. On the other hand, candidates having Ph.D Degree  and also candidates having M. Tech. Degree only were to be considered simultaneously although preference was to be given to Ph.D. candidates. It has to be added that Ph.D. candidates did not have exclusive right to be considered in the first instance to the exclusion of M. Tech. candidates. The Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates found respondents no. 3 to 5 to be more suitable and meritorious for the job as against the applicant. Consequently, selection of  respondents 3 to 5 cannot be quashed merely because they did not hold Ph.D. Degree nor direction for  selection and appointment of the applicant can be given merely because he holds  Ph. D. Degree.7.	For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the instant O.A., which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL)
                                                                         MEMBER (J)


							   (UDAY KUMAR VARMA)
							            MEMBER (A)	
Dated:  29.07.2016
`SK1(O.A. No. 063/00080/2016)