VILAS LAXMAN RAUT Vs. MAZGAON DOCK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and further seeks direction against respondent No. 1 Mazgaon Dock Limited to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer with effect from same day on which respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were appointed and to fix his inter se seniority accordingly. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner joined the services with respondent No. 1 on 29th November, 1978 in the category of 'b' grade clerk. In or about the year 1983 respondent No. 1 issued a public notice in a newspaper calling for applications for selection to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Although the said selection was on open selection, the petitioner as also respondent No. 7 and several other employees of respondent No. 1 applied for consideration. After having considered all available candidates, a short-list was prepared of 6 candidates which included the petitioner and respondent No. 7. This list had 2 outside candidates and 4 internal candidates. Ultimately, one Hirlakar and one Menon were appointed to the two vacant posts under consideration at that time. Again in the year 1986 six further vacancies arose in the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. It appears that respondent No. 1 took an administrative decision to invite applications in the first instance only from those qualified and working with respondent No. 1 and accordingly applications were invited under circular dated 5th July, 1986 from eligible employment of respondent No. 1. It was stated in the said circular that the applicant should be a graduate of any recognised university and preferably holding a diploma in management/ administration of the Bombay University or equipment. It was also stated that the applicant should have at least 3 years experience in the respondent No. 1 company. Pursuant to the said circular, petitioner and 42 other employees applied for the post and appeared for written examination. Respondent No. 7 did not apply for consideration and did not sit nor the requisite written tests nor appeared for the preliminary interview. Out of 43 applicants who appeared for the written examination, only 33 were called for the preliminary interview. Ultimately, a short list of 24 employees was prepared for the purpose of final interview. This included the petitioner as also respondent No. 7, although she had not appeared for written test or preliminary interview. Finally by circular dated 8th September, 1986 respondent No. 1 notified the names of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 as selected candidates. Aggrieved by the refusal of respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) THE basic grievance of the petitioner is that although he was the most qualified candidate and secured 2nd highest marks, he has been excluded from the selection process by deliberately giving low marks under the heading "overall". He has challenged the selection process principally on four grounds : (1) that the allocation of 45% marks for oral interview (viva voce 30% marks and overall performance 15%) was highly excessive and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and was therefore illegal; (ii) that in any event, the allocation of 15% marks under the heading "overall Performance" was totally arbitrary and illegal; (iii) that the selection of respondent No. 7 without appearing for the written test and viva voce was contrary to the regulations; and (iv) that respondent No. 2 is not and has never been an employee of respondent No. 1 and as such was not eligible for appointment.

(3.) ON behalf of respondent No. 1 Shrinivas Bidwai, Manager (Personnel Officers) had filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that the post of Assistant Administrative Officer being of executive cadre, is a selection post. It is further stated that the selection was based on the written test, preliminary interview and final interview and the basic qualification. The prescribed marks for selection to the post were as follows : (a) Written test 30 marks (b) Viva voce 30 marks (c) Additional 10 marks Qualification (d) Confidential 15 marks Report for last 2 years (e) Overall assessment 15 marks It is stated that in the viva voce. i. e. , preliminary interview, the petitioner was not found suitable but still he was called for the final interview. i. e. , overall assessment. The petitioner got only 6 out of 15 marks in the "overall Assessment" i. e. , less than the minimum of 55% of marks and therefore could not be selected. It is denied that the petitioner was deliberately excluded from the selection process. It is contended that granting of 30 marks for viva voce and 15 marks for overall assessment was reasonable and justified as the members of selection committee gave marks appropriately. It is also contended that the overall assessment is an important aspect from the point of view of suitability of candidate. As regards the selection of respondent No. 7 it is contended that she was allowed to appear at the final interview as she had passed the written test held earlier in 1984 and she was already in the waiting list at serial No. 2 and as she was found suitable even at the final interview, her name was included in the selection list. Lastly, as regards the selection of respondent No. 2, it is contended that respondent No. 2 was an employee of Nava Yard which is a division of respondent No. 1 and as such he was eligible for appointment.