MANE BANDU GANGADHAR Vs. AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS RECRUITMENT BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN, PUSA, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Original Application has been instituted seeking to quash the selection process dated 16.10.2009 and to declare the ARS viva voce conducted on 18.09.2009 as null and void being contrary to the principles of natural justice and in breach of fundamental rights of the applicants, and to direct the respondents to select the candidates as per the eligibility criteria mentioned in the notification dated 03.12.2008.

(2.) The facts of the case may be summarized as follows: It has been alleged by the applicants that the applicant No.1 is working as Assistant Professor in Veterinary College, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, whereas the applicant No.2 is working as Assistant Professor in College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Udgir, District Latur, Maharashtra. The respondent No.1 is the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB), New Delhi, which conducted the selection process for the post of major discipline: Animal Product Technology, and sub discipline: Livestock Product Technology. The respondent No.2 is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, which is the parent body having control over the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 is the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, and is the Ministry under which the respondents 1 and 2 are functioning. Respondents 4 and 5 are the students whose applications have been entertained and who have been selected for the post of Livestock Products Technology. Respondents 4 and 5 are alleged to be ineligible persons who have been selected as against the eligible candidates. A notification was issued by the respondent No.1 on 17.09.2008 with respect to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)/National Eligibility Test (NET) Examination, 2009. A notification dated 03.12.2008 was also issued to fill up the additional vacancies for ARS through ARS/NET Examination, 2009. The notification comprised details of the discipline, number of the posts and reserved category, showing the qualifications required. It is pleaded that the applicants were eligible for ARS post in the discipline of Livestock Products Technology. They submitted their applications for the major discipline: Animal Product Technology and sub -discipline: Livestock Products Technology. Respondents 4 and 5 also submitted their applications for the ARS/NET Examination, 2009. The closing date was extended up to 31.12.2008. The applicants came to know that respondents 4 and 5 had also filed applications for the post of Livestock Products Technology, although they belong to different discipline and were not eligible for the post of Livestock Products Technology. The applicants verified the list of the students called provisionally for the written test for admission to Ph.D degree Programme 2008 -09, and they came to know that the 4th respondent was not qualified for the Livestock Products Technology as he belongs to Poultry Science discipline. The applicants also verified the list of the students to be called for written test/interview for admission to P.G. programme 2007 -08, and came to know that the respondent No.5 too was not qualified for the Livestock Products Technology as he belongs to Poultry Science discipline. It is alleged that in blatant disregard to its own notification, the respondent No.1 not only called the respondents 4 and 5 for viva voce, but also selected them for the post of Livestock Products Technology discipline against the OBC seats by pushing other qualified OBC seats into unreserved category, by giving special favour. Application under the Right to Information Act was also submitted to which the respondents replied. It is alleged that illegally, selection was made of respondents 4 and 5 for the post for which they were not eligible, whereas the applicants, even though eligible for the post according to their qualifications, have not been selected. Hence, the OA.

(3.) Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 4 and 5. The official respondents 1 to 3 in their counter reply have raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the OA. It has been alleged that the respondent No.2 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and can be sued in the name of the Secretary, ICAR, and that the present OA is bad for mis -joinder of parties, as the respondents 2 and 3 have wrongly been arrayed as respondents. It has further been alleged that the contents of paras 4(i) to (vii) are matter of record and need no reply. It is then alleged that respondents 4 and 5 were candidates for ARS/NET Examination in the discipline of Livestock Product Technology and possess the qualification of Masters Degree in Veterinary Science, and that the prescribed qualification for the discipline of Livestock Products Technology is Master Degree in Veterinary Science/Animal Science with specialization in Livestock Products Technology/Food Processing Technology. It is alleged that the eligibility of the respondents 4 and 5 for the discipline was examined by the technical experts, and that these respondents were eligible in view of the prescribed qualification for the discipline of Livestock Products Technology, as Poultry Product Technology is part and parcel of Livestock Products Technology, and further that the contention of the applicants contrary to that is not to be relied, and that there was no violation of the prescribed qualification for the discipline. That it is wrong to allege that respondent No.5 was not qualified for Livestock Products Technology discipline. The prescribed qualification for the discipline of Livestock Products Technology is Master Degree in Veterinary Science/Animal Science with specialization in Livestock Products Technology/Food Processing Technology. The eligibility of respondents 4 and 5 for the discipline was examined by technical experts and they were held eligible in view of the prescribed qualification for the discipline of Livestock Products Technology, and as the said respondents were eligible, hence they were called for viva voce on the basis of merit list drawn for calling the candidates for viva voce, and final merit list was drawn on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination as well as viva voce for ARS. Respondents 4 and 5 were recommended for appointment as per vacancies available for OBC category. Merit list has also been annexed with the counter reply. It is pleaded that the folders of the candidates selected and recommended for appointment are sent in original to the ICAR, who is the appointing authority, and that whatever has been alleged by the applicants is contrary to the facts of the case, and further that the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.