RAKESH RANJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rakesh Ranjan Singh and three others, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare the process of region -wise selection for the post of Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer (EO/AAO) as illegal and unjustified, and in consequence thereof to direct the respondents to declare them as selected for the post of EO/AAO and promote them as per rules, as also to quash and set aside the selection made by the respondents region -wise and direct them to declare the select list on all India basis. The applicants also seek a declaration that the scheme of examination for the post of EO/AAO circulated vide letter dated 18.12.2002 and applied in their case, is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts on which the reliefs as indicated above are sought to rest reveal that as per the Employees Provident Fund Organization (Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer) Recruitment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 2002), the posts of EO/AAO are to be filled up by way of promotion to the extent of 50% (other than examination quota), 25% by promotion on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and 25% by direct recruitment. Insofar as the 25% quota of LDCE is concerned, with which alone the applicants are concerned, persons with three years regular service as Section Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.5000 -8000 and Upper Division Clerk/Assistant/Stenographer/Date Entry Operator Gr. A with five years regular service in the scale of Rs.4000 -6000 in respective regions, and Junior Hindi Translator in the pay scale of Rs.4500 -7000 with five years regular service in respective regions, are eligible. The method of recruitment, age limit and other qualifications are specified in columns 5 to 14 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2002, as mentioned in rule 3. Various quotas, as mentioned above, have been picked by us from column 12 of the Schedule, which came into being by virtue of provisions contained in rule 3 of the Rules aforesaid. The applicants are already serving as SSSA/DEO/Section Supervisor, and it is not in dispute that they are eligible to compete for the 25% quota earmarked for departmental examination. The respondents initiated the process for departmental examination for promotion to the post of EO in the month of December, 2009 on all India basis. It is the case of the applicants that in the concerned letter, it has been clearly stated that applications would be collected by the Regional PF Commissioner and thereafter the same would be sent to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Exam), Head Office, New Delhi, the third respondent arrayed in the OA, for further necessary action. The applicants serving on the posts as mentioned above are posted in Delhi and Faridabad offices. They applied for appearing in the departmental examination, and their applications were forwarded to the

(3.) rd respondent for necessary action. The respondents thereafter conducted the departmental competitive examination to fill the posts of EO/AO. The applicant appears in the examination. Even though, the respondents had made a mention of 21 regions for which the vacancies were declared, but they were to be filled up pursuant to the same examination in which all the candidates all over the country were allowed to appear. The result of the examination was declared on 05.08.2010. The applicants were shocked to see the manner in which the select list was prepared for promotion to the post of EO/AO. It is their case that the candidates who secured lesser marks than them were declared selected merely because they are serving in different regions, and that the candidates having lesser marks scored over the meritorious candidates who secured more marks than them, and this, according to the applicants, would violate the principle of equal chance. The applicants secured 297, 288, 311 and 300 marks out of 500, and were yet not selected, whereas candidates who secured even 240 marks out of 500 have been declared selected. Some of the details which have been given by the applicants of the candidates who secured lesser marks than them, are as follows: Sl. No. Name Region Marks 1. Dinesh Gowda Karnataka 251 2. Mahesh Babu Karnataka 266 3. Morckar Anisha Maharashtra 287 4.Suman Nitesh Maharashtra 279 5.D K Mishra Maharashtra 274 6.D D Chaudhry Maharashtra 246 7.Takalkar A.S. Maharashtra 238 8.Pawan Patel Madhya Pradesh 282 9.SamarPankaj Gupta Madhya Pradesh 257 10.Gautam Dey West Bengal 237 11.Arun Kumar Dass West Bengal 240 12.Amit Gupta West Bengal 261 The applicants in the manner aforesaid, as per the case set up by them, have been denied selection and thus their promotion on the post of EO/AO, only because they belong to Delhi and Haryana Regions. It is their case that making selections region -wise would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply, contested the cause of the applicants. It is the case of the respondents that even as per clause 12 of the schedule to the Rules of 2002 and the LDCE scheme for promotion, the posts are to be filled by departmental examination for the respective regions. There exists an approved examination scheme called Departmental competitive Examination Scheme for promotion to the post of EO/AO, 2002. The last examination under the scheme was held in the 15 regions from 16th to 20th June, 2003 where vacancies under this 25% quota were available. A circular was issued by RPFC (Exam), EPFO, HO, New Delhi on 01.09.2009 along with the statement of region -wise vacancies in accordance with the 2002 scheme to fill up the vacancies pertaining to examination quota in the cadre of EO/AO. It is averred that it would be clear from the plain reading of the circular, particularly para 2 thereof, that the examination would be held in the States mentioned in the circular, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners of the regions are to notify the vacancies and invite applications from eligible candidates, and that it is nowhere mentioned in the circular that the applications would be collected by the 3rd respondent, and further that the applications have to be collected by respective Regional Commissioners and sent to the erstwhile Regional Commissioner who maintains the seniority and other details for that particular region. The applicants appeared in the departmental examination, but could not come out as successful in the examination in their respective region. Result of the examination was announced containing the names of successful officials to the extent of the vacancies notified as available in each of the Regional Offices of EPFO. The applicants have, however, not come out as successful in their respective regions as per the scheme. It is pleaded that the examination is only for promotion and is not an all India competitive examination, and that the recruitment rules would allow the examination only for a class of employees of EPFO. Examination under the said approved departmental competitive examination scheme had been conduced in the year 2003 and officials who came out as successful then were given promotion to the post of EO/AO in their respective regions. It is then pleaded that the applicants did not raise any issue with respect to either the scheme of departmental competitive examination at the time of its notification for its conduct in 2009, or any such attempt was made by them at the time of applying for the said examination. It is only after declaration of the result that they have filed the present Original Application.