Employment Officer , Employment Exchange , Kerala Vs. Abdul Nagar and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 551 of 1998 ,( Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2596 of 1994 )
Petitioner: Employment Officer , Employment Exchange , Kerala
Respondent: Abdul Nagar and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 551 of 1998 ,( Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2596 of 1994 )
Judges: SUJATA V. MANOHAR & K. VENKATASNVAMI , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 29, 1998
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 14 , 16 , 226 – Arbitrariness – Selection process – Extra Departmental Branch Post Master – Names of 9 candidates , regis-tered with employment exchange in order of registration date – Last candidate registered on 31.12.86 – Whether date is cut-off date and arbitrary – Held that there is no arbitrariness- It is called a cut-off date , because it is the date of registration of last candidate as per vacancy advertised .
Held:
It is a misnomer to call this date a cut-off date . For each vacancy the Employment Exchange is required to forward the names of the first 9 eligible candidates in the order of their date of registration with the Employment Exchange . The date of registra-tion of the last candidate is treated as a cut-off date . In the present case , the first respondent was registered later than the 9 candidates whose names were forwarded . Hence his name was not forwarded . ( Para 5 )
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 . Leave granted .
2 . Respondent 1 in his application before the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal , Ernakulam Bench , challenged the selection pro-cess for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster , Mannarmala Post Office .
3 . The Superintendent of Post Offices invited applications through the Employment Exchange for the post of Extra Departmen-tal Branch Postmaster on 4-9-1991. The appellant-Employment Officer , Parinthalmanna , sent from the Live Register maintained by the Employment Exchange , in the order of registration date , the names of 9 candidates . The last candidate whose name was so sent had registered on 31-12-1986 . The nine candidates were called for interview and Respondent 3 was selected for the post . Respondent I who had registered with the said Employment Exchange on 16-5-1988 challenged the selection on the ground that the cut-off date of 31-12-1986 which was applied by the Employment Ex-change for forwarding the names of candidates was arbitrary and hence the entire selection process is vitiated . This contention has been upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence the present appeal has been filed .
4 . The appellant had produced before the Central Administrative Tribunal the National Employment Service Manual . The Tribunal has recorded that the normal practice for the Employment Exchange is to call 15 to 18 candidates who satisfy the requirements of the post advertised for presubmission interview . The vacancy position is notified through newspapers and radio broadcast . From these persons the Manual prescribes that 9 qualified candi-dates can be sponsored against each notified vacancy . The names are considered in the order of seniority of registration with the Employment Exchange . It was on the basis of this procedure that the names of 9 candidates who were eligible for the said post were forwarded by the Employment Exchange in the order of their seniority depending upon the date of registration . The last candidate whose name was so forwarded had registered on 31-12-1986 . That is why the date 31-12-1986 is called the cutoff date .
5 . We do not find anything arbitrary or illegal about this method of forwarding names of candidates for consideration in respect of a notified vacancy . In fact , it is a misnomer to call this date a cut-off date . For each vacancy the Employment Ex-change is required to forward the names of the first 9 eligible candidates in the order of their date of registration with the Employment Exchange . The date of registration of the last can-didate is treated as a cut-off date . In the present case , the first respondent was registered later than the 9 candidates whose names were forwarded . Hence his name was not forwarded . The Tribunal , therefore , was not right in setting aside the selection and appointment of Respondent 3 .
6 . The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside . The application of the first respond-ent before the Tribunal is dismissed .
1 . Leave granted .
2 . Respondent 1 in his application before the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal , Ernakulam Bench , challenged the selection pro-cess for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster , Mannarmala Post Office .
3 . The Superintendent of Post Offices invited applications through the Employment Exchange for the post of Extra Departmen-tal Branch Postmaster on 4-9-1991. The appellant-Employment Officer , Parinthalmanna , sent from the Live Register maintained by the Employment Exchange , in the order of registration date , the names of 9 candidates . The last candidate whose name was so sent had registered on 31-12-1986 . The nine candidates were called for interview and Respondent 3 was selected for the post . Respondent I who had registered with the said Employment Exchange on 16-5-1988 challenged the selection on the ground that the cut-off date of 31-12-1986 which was applied by the Employment Ex-change for forwarding the names of candidates was arbitrary and hence the entire selection process is vitiated . This contention has been upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence the present appeal has been filed .
4 . The appellant had produced before the Central Administrative Tribunal the National Employment Service Manual . The Tribunal has recorded that the normal practice for the Employment Exchange is to call 15 to 18 candidates who satisfy the requirements of the post advertised for presubmission interview . The vacancy position is notified through newspapers and radio broadcast . From these persons the Manual prescribes that 9 qualified candi-dates can be sponsored against each notified vacancy . The names are considered in the order of seniority of registration with the Employment Exchange . It was on the basis of this procedure that the names of 9 candidates who were eligible for the said post were forwarded by the Employment Exchange in the order of their seniority depending upon the date of registration . The last candidate whose name was so forwarded had registered on 31-12-1986 . That is why the date 31-12-1986 is called the cutoff date .
5 . We do not find anything arbitrary or illegal about this method of forwarding names of candidates for consideration in respect of a notified vacancy . In fact , it is a misnomer to call this date a cut-off date . For each vacancy the Employment Ex-change is required to forward the names of the first 9 eligible candidates in the order of their date of registration with the Employment Exchange . The date of registration of the last can-didate is treated as a cut-off date . In the present case , the first respondent was registered later than the 9 candidates whose names were forwarded . Hence his name was not forwarded . The Tribunal , therefore , was not right in setting aside the selection and appointment of Respondent 3 .
6 . The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside . The application of the first respond-ent before the Tribunal is dismissed .
