PAWAN KUMAR Vs. ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for the post of Apprentice in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai in 1996. He was selected on merit by the Naval Dockyard department to that post. The process of selection was conducted by the Naval Dockyard. Upon his selection in the year 1996, he was sent for 2 years' training, which he completed on 13th July 1998. Thereafter he got appointment in the Naval Dockyard on 13th July 1998 as a skilled welder (trade) and since then he has been working in that post.

(2.) In response to the requirement of an advertisement published by respondent No. 1 in the Employment News dated 19th/25th November 2005 for the post of ship fitter, written examination was held on 21st August 2006, result of which was published and the petitioner was declared successful being in merit list on 22nd August 2006. This result was declared and the petitioner was enlisted at Serial No. 2 bearing Roll No. 19. A call letter was sent for interview to the petitioner on 24th August 2006 and he was allowed to enter in the chamber of the Interview Committee. The Committee consisted of 4 members and they asked the petitioner questions in relation to his trade or skilled welder, which the petitioner alleges, were answered satisfactorily by him. However, thereafter the petitioner was informed by the Members of the Committee that his interview could not be conducted as his trade was not the subject matter for selection to that post. On 24th August 2006, the petitioner claims to have visited the office of the Board, but the petitioner was not subjected to interview, at any time subsequent thereto. In furtherance to the call letter, it is averred by the petitioner that he visited the President of the Board Captain, G.K. Harish, for confirmation of his interview date when he came to know that the result of the interview had already been dispatched and the petitioner was not required to be interviewed and that they are not going to hold any interview thereafter.

(3.) The petitioner, vide his advocate's notice dated 17th October 2006 addressed to the Personnel Manager of Naval Dockyard called for their explanation as to why the petitioner was not interviewed. This notice failed to get any response from the respondents. Again a notice was sent on 7th November 2006, to which the respondents sent a reply on 10th November 2006, the relevant portion of which reads as under: