K. Elango Judicial Member
This application has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
âTo call for the records of the respondents with No. 20762/DSE/DTE Estt/A6 2009 dated 22.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Trainee Fine Arts Teacher with all other consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of wages and to pass such other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice.â
2. According to the applicant he is a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree (BFA for short) and he holds Technical Teacher Certificate and therefore he is fully qualified for the post of Fine Arts Teacher. He belongs to MBC category and as such he is entitled for reservation for the post of Trainee Fine Arts Teacher at a consolidated wages of Rs.6000/- per month.
3. The respondents have issued a notification No. 20762/DSE/Dte.Estt/A6/2009 dated 18.12.2009, inviting applications from eligible candidates who are the residents of UT of Pondicherry for the post of Trainee Fine Arts Teacher on contract basis for a period of three years at a consolidated wages of Rs. 6000/p.m. The age limit prescribed for the post is 18 and 32 as on the last date for receipt of applications which is 11.01.2010. It is further stated that Age limit is relaxable for MBC OBC SC Ex-servicemen and Meritorious Sports Person and Physically Handicapped candidates in accordance with instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. It is further stated that in a daily news paper published on 23.10.2010, that out 184 applications 172 were rejected since they were not having the required qualification. It is submitted by the applicant that for 51 posts only 12 applications alone available. The case of the applicant is that his application had been rejected since he is over aged by six months on the last date of receipt of applications. It is also stated by him that in view of the fact that there was no recruitment to the post of Fine Arts Teacher for so many years, most of the eligible persons have become over-aged. It also averred by him that S/shri Thangavelu, Linguessar and Srivengadeswaran were given appointment in spite of their over age and hence the applicant cannot be denied appointment. It is also stated by him that he submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds since his father died on 27.04.2003 on 09.06.2003 and again he submitted fresh application on 29.10.2010 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. As there was no reply he filed the present O.A seeking the relief as extracted above. The main contention of the applicant that similar selection was made in the year 2007 wherein some persons who have crossed 46 years have also been given appointment and the applicant was denied appointment because he is over aged on the last date for submission of applications.
4. Upon notice the respondents have entered appearance and filed detailed reply denying the allegations made against them made by the applicant except those which are admitted based on records. It is stated that 51 vacancies were notified on 18.12.2009 in the news paper and also it was notified to employment exchanges. 184 applicants were received in response to the notifications out of which only 13 applications were found eligible as per recruitment rules and the remaining applications were rejected. It is further stated in the reply that the recruitment was not conducted due to court cases and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 41467/2005 recruitment was conducted on 17.06.2007 based on the applications received as per the notifications dated 02.09.99 and 22.07.2005. The applicant did not participate in the above two tests conducted since he was not qualified. It is further submitted that the selected candidates were within the age limit on the last date for submission of applications. It is also submitted by the respondents that in view of the decision taken in a cabinet meeting held on 23.02.2009, recruitment to all the posts under Directorate of School Education is to be done on contract basis. With regard to the request of the applicant seeking compassionate appointment, it is also submitted by the respondents that since the maximum period of five years is over for making a request seeking compassionate appointment, the request of the applicant dated 29.08.2008 was not considered by the respondents and the screening committee had decided not to take up the cases which are received five years after the death of the government servant. The respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder controverting the statements made in the reply and reiterated the stand taken by him in the O.A. He has also filed a copy of the application submitted by him seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records carefully. The main contention of the applicant is that in earlier recruitments over aged persons were appointed whereas the applicant's case was not considered for relaxation of age in the selection in question. In support of his contention, the applicant has relied on the following orders of this Tribunal:
1. R.Jayakumar O.A. No. 1314/2010 Vs. decided on 23.12.2010 UOI and anr.
2. Pondicherry Fine and Classical O.A. No. 1329/2010 Arts Degree Holders Assn. decided on 27.06.2012 Rep. by its President K. Saravanan And anr. Vs. UOI and ors.
7. It is seen from the records that R. Jayakumar (applicant in O.A. No. 1314/2010) had participated in the written examination and hence the respondents were directed to re-open the sealed cover and publish his results. Similarly in O.A. No. 1329/2010, during the pendency of the O.A, the applicants therein had acquired the qualification as prescribed in the recruitment rules and hence the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the applicants for appointment to the category of Fine Arts Teacher, and if necessary they may invoke the power for relaxation if necessary.
8. Admittedly, the applicant herein did not attend the examination and hence he is not similarly placed as that the applicant in O.A No. 1314/2010. He is also not similarly placed as that of the applicants in OA No. 1329/2010 and hence both the decisions are not of much helpful to the applicant's case. The request of the applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was also not considered in view of the rules position.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the O.A is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed. No order as to costs.