UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAVEEN P.N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are questioning the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity referred as 'CAT') in O.A.No.170/01433/2018.

(2.) The case of the respondent-applicant before the Tribunal is that he served as Master Chief Engine Room Artificer II (MCERA II) in the Armed Forces of Indian Navy and he was discharged from the Armed Forces on 31.08.2014 after completion of satisfactory tenure vide Release Certificate dated 31.08.2014. At the time of his retirement, he was holding the rank of MCERA-II with pay scale of PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. He applied to the post of Junior Engineer (Naval Quality Assurance) (JE(NQA), Directorate of Quality Assurance (Naval) (DQA(N), New Delhi, under the cadre of Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and subsequently he was called for interview for the said post on 16.03.2015 and was selected. The appointing authority having issued the appointment letter dated 24.7.2015 posted him to Quality Assurance Establishment (Warship Equipment) [QAE(WE)], Jalahalli, Camp Road, Bengaluru, and he joined service on 18.8.2015. He utilized the privilege of age relaxation only and has not utilized the benefits available to him as an Ex-serviceman. His further case is that post retirement and before getting employed at the O/o QAE(WE), Bangalore, in response to the employment Notice dated 21.11.2014 he had in fact applied for the post of Engineer (Marine) under Group 'B' Gazetted Post. He further contended that the post of Engineer (Marine) which is a Group 'B' post does not come under the purview of reservation. The second petitioner having short listed him vide letter dated 15.2.2016 directed him to appear personally for verification of service documents on 3.2.2016. However, the petitioners demanded self declaration which is in contravention of the procedure laid down under DOPT OM dated 3.4.1991 certifying his present employment in lieu of the undertaking dated 1.3.2016.

(3.) It is the further case of the respondent-applicant that in spite of thorough clarification submitted by him, the concerned Officers insisted him to produce necessary documentary evidence from the present employer i.e. QAE(WE), Bengaluru, to confirm the details of his present employment. However, subsequently he was informed that his candidature is not considered. He again requested to review and consider his grievance. However, the second petitioner vide order dated 21.4.2016 replied that his case has been examined once again and the case stands closed. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the second petitioner, the applicant filed O.A.No.363/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2016 for want of jurisdiction and as such the respondent-applicant was compelled to approach the CAT, Bengaluru Bench, by filing O.A.No.975/2016. The Tribunal referring to para 2 of the order dated 10.10.1994 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (New Delhi) held that the respondent-applicant is eligible for age relaxation but not reservation as Ex-serviceman. If the applicant is meeting the first consideration, he need not be given the second consideration and therefore will be eligible for consideration for age relaxation, if found suitable for appointment and therefore the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of respondent-applicant within one month in terms of the said order. Accordingly, O.A.No.975/2016 was allowed to the said limited extent vide order dated 09.01.2018. The time granted stood extended on several occasions at the request of petitioners herein for a period of four months and after lapse of five months, the second petitioner served an intimation to the respondent-applicant vide letter/communication dated 6.6.2018 declining his prayer and ignoring the orders of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2018. He therefore submitted another representation dated 25.06.2018 to the second petitioner for review of its decision and consider his candidature but the same was not replied. Hence, the respondent-applicant was constrained to file the present original application in O.A. No.170/01433/2018.