*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13625 of 2006 % 25-06-2008 Between: # Immani Suryanarayana. …Petitioner And $ Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, rep., by its Chariman. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri P.Venugopal ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Sri K.Srinivas Murthy ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.4: Sri K.Srinivas Rao < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13625 of 2006 ORDER: The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, 1st respondent herein issued an employment notice, dated 24.04.2006, inviting applications for two posts of Fire and Assistant Safety Officers. One post was reserved in favour of ex- servicemen and the other was un-reserved. The appointment was by way of selection and the age limit of the candidates was prescribed as 35 years. The other qualifications prescribed by the 1st respondent are that the candidate must be a graduate, must have undergone training in a recognized Fire Training School, must have an experience of three years in a supervisory capacity in the regular fire service and must possess driving licence for light and heavy vehicles. The petitioner was employed in the Indian Navy and served it for 18 years. He responded to the employment notice, after obtaining detailed information from the website of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent is an existing employee of the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent is an ex-serviceman. The instructions issued by the Government of India in its office memos, dated 17.07.1986 and 19.05.l998, provided for relaxation of upper age limit for ex-servicemen, to the extent of the length of the military service, increased by three years, whenever they apply for civilian posts. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was eligible to be considered not only against the vacancy reserved in favour of ex- servicemen but also the unreserved vacancy. Two other candidates also applied for these posts. The 1st respondent appointed a Scrutiny Committee to examine and verify the applications, with reference to the said qualifications, and a Selection Committee, to select the candidates. Respondents 3 and 4 were selected for the two posts and were issued orders of appointment. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the Scrutiny Committee found that respondents 3 and 4 are not eligible to be considered for the posts at all, on account of the fact that the 3rd respondent has crossed the age limit and the 4th respondent does not hold the training certificate from a recognized institution. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent, one of the trustees of the 1st respondent, had addressed a letter, recommending the case of the 3rd respondent and accordingly, his case was considered, though it was not recommended by the Scrutiny Committee. Several other contentions are also urged. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. No dispute is raised as to the qualifications held by the petitioner or about his eligibility. So far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, it is pleaded that the Chairman had used his discretion and relaxed the maximum age limit. It is stated that though the training undergone by the 4th respondent was only for a period of 13 days, his experience in Navy was treated as sufficient for the purpose. It is further stated that no irregularity has taken place in the selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4. Though respondents 2 and 3 were served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance or to file counter affidavits. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. He stated that even while serving Navy, he has undergone training and received necessary instructions on supervision of crash fire tender and air crash rescue teams, apart from inspecting first aid fire fighting appliances etc. He made a mention of other qualifications held by him, such as Diploma in Industrial Security and Safety Management from National Institute of Security Management(R), Banglore. He also stated that while discharging the petitioner from service, Navy had certified him to be eligible to undertake various assignments, including fire fighting. Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent flouted all the norms prescribed by itself, in the matter of selection and appointment of the Fire and Assistant Officers. He further submits that the Scrutiny Committee, comprising of very senior officers, was constituted to scrutinize the applications; and on an objective assessment of the qualifications, the committee found initially that respondents 3 and 4 are not eligible at all. He contends that on a reference being made by the Head of the Department i.e., Deputy Conservator, the name of the 4th respondent was included and call letters were issued only to four candidates including the 4th respondent. He submits that solely on the basis of a letter addressed by the 2nd respondent, at a stage, when the interviews were being held, the name of the 3rd respondent was included, without there being any interview call letter. He further submits that though there is no provision for relaxation of age limit, for internal candidates, the Chairman of the 1st respondent had relaxed the age limit of the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel also submits that the information furnished by the 1st respondent, on an application made by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, is sufficient to demonstrate the arbitrariness, nepotism and lack of transparency in the appointments. Sri K.Srinivas Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the Selection Committee found respondents 3 and 4 better qualified than the petitioner and the findings of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with. He also submits that the appointment of Scrutiny Committee was only an administrative measure and the opinion rendered by it is not at all final. He further submits that in addition to 2nd respondent, two other trustees have also recommended for relaxation of the age limit of the 3rd respondent, who is an internal candidate. Sri K.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that his client possesses all the prescribed qualifications and on an overall assessment, the selection committee found him suitable. He further submits that the qualifications held by the 4th respondent are superior to those possessed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent is a statutory organization. It issued employment notice, inviting applications for two posts of Fire and Assistant Safety Officers. The appointment is to be made through direct recruitment and by way of selection. The age limit of the candidates was stipulated as 35 years and the educational qualifications are prescribed as under: (1) Must be Graduate of recognized University. (2) Must have had training in a recognized Fire training school. (3) Experience of not less than 3 years in a supervisory capacity in a regular Fire service. (4) Should possess a driving licence for light and heavy vehicles. In the affidavit filed by him in support of the writ petition, the petitioner presented a comparative picture of the qualifications held by himself and respondents 3 and 4. The cases of the petitioner and the 4th respondent are comparable; in that, both of them are ex-servicemen. Though there is not much of difference as to the educational qualifications, experience and possession of driving licence, there is a substantial difference about the training in a recognized fire training school. While the petitioner has undergone such training from a recognized school and was issued a Diploma, the training undergone by the 4th respondent is not from such a school and even the duration was of just 13 days. A Scrutiny Committee, comprising of Fire and Assistant Safety Officer, Deputy Secretary and Law Officer, scrutinized the applications and made the following recommendation against the petitioner and respondent No.4: Sl.No. Name Remarks 2. Sri I.Suryanarayana Recommended, provided age relaxation on ex- serviceman 11. Sri N.Venkat Rao Not recommended as he has done only 13 days NBCs course. It is not in dispute that being ex-servicemen, both of them are entitled for relaxation of age limit, to the extent of the length of their service plus three years, as provided for under the orders issued by the Government of India from time to time. While the petitioner had 18 years of service to his credit, the 4th respondent has 15 years. Since they were aged 42 years and 39 years respectively, they became eligible, after exclusion of their service in the Navy. The 3rd respondent was an internal candidate and was aged 48 years. The Rules framed by the Port Trust prescribe that in cases, where internal candidates apply for the posts to be filled by direct recruitment and possess the prescribed qualifications and experience, the age limit shall not apply. The petitioner categorically stated that the 3rd respondent did not hold any post of Supervisory category and his name did not figure in the list of officers working in Supervisory category published by the 1st respondent year after year. This statement made in the affidavit remained unrebutted by the 1st respondent. It is not out of place to mention that on a scrutiny of the application of the 3rd respondent, the Scrutiny Committee observed as under: “His age is 48 years 2 months 12 days as on 1- 5-2006 where as for direct recruits age prescribed is 35 years. He is also Leading Fireman which is not a supervisory cadre as per schedule of Port employees. The candidate has experience of Leading Fireman for 8 years and in practice a Leading Fireman supervises the work of Fireman many time. The experience may be considered. Since he is a departmental candidate age relaxation may be considered if rules permit.” Against this suggestion, the appointing authority made the following endorsement: “it is not the experience it is R.R.. Already lot of problems are coming on R.R. issue”. Ultimately, vide its proceedings, dated 12.06.2006, the Scrutiny Committee prepared a list of four names viz., the petitioner, 4th respondent, Bathula Sankara Rao and Kota Shanta Rao. Prima facie, it was of the view that the petitioner and Bathula Sankar Rao were alone entitled to be considered and sought for orders, as to whether only those candidates or all the four, must be issued call letters. The fact remains that the name of the 3rd respondent did not figure in the list at all. After obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority, the call letters were issued to the four candidates mentioned above. Interviews were scheduled to be held on 30.06.2006. The 2nd respondent addressed a letter, dated 28.06.2006, to the Deputy Chairman, requesting that the 3rd respondent may be permitted to attend the interview, since according to him, the 3rd respondent is fully qualified in all respects. On the next day, the Manager (operations) submitted a note with the following summary: “After detailed discussion, it was decided to consider Sri V.V.Das, Leading Fireman for selection to the post of F&ASO (CI.II), by according relaxation of age limit, since he is a departmental candidate and is well acquainted with the working of Fire Service Section of VPT, in view of his 29 years of service in the Fire Section of V.P.T. and out of which 9 years as Leading Fireman please.” The Head of the Department i.e., Deputy Conservator did not express any opinion. The Deputy Chairman opined that the relevant Recruitment Rules and the precedents need to be examined. Ultimately, the Chairman endorsed as under: “let us take up the interview” There is no indication that the Chairman had accorded any relaxation of age limit of the 3rd respondent. On 30.06.2006, the names of 5 candidates including that of the 3rd respondent, were placed before the Selection Committee. Two candidates, by name K. Santa Rao and B.Sankar Rao, did not turn up. The opinion expressed by the Selection Committee about the eligibility of the 3rd respondent is as under: “Chairman has accorded approval for relaxation of age limit, since he is a Departmental Candidate and well acquainted with the work of Fire Service Section of VPT in view of his 29 years Service in the Fire Service Section of VPT.” From the bunch of papers furnished to the petitioner, in compliance with an application filed by him under the Right to Information Act, the minutes of the Selection Committee are evident as under: “The above candidates were interviewed. Sri Viyyapu Velangini Das was found suitable and selected. Sri N.Venkata Rao was also found suitable and both selected for the post of F&ASO (Cl.II) in the order of merit.” From the above discussion, it becomes evident that the case of the 3rd respondent was considered, though it was clearly found that he was not eligible, solely on the basis of alleged relaxation of age limit by the Chairman. No reference was made to any provision of law or any official order. His case was not at all channelised through the Scrutiny Committee, after it found him to be ineligible. So far as the 4th respondent is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee found him ineligible, on account of the fact that he does not hold any certificate of training from a recognized institution. It was only when the case was referred to it again by the Deputy Conservator, that the Scrutiny Committee included the name of the 4th respondent in the list of eligible candidates. Neither himself nor the 1st respondent are able to name the institution, in which he has undergone training and if so, whether it was recognized by the competent authority at all. The fact that the 4th respondent did not undergo the necessary training stipulated in the notification is evident from the note of the Manager (operations) made on 30.06.2006, which reads as follows: “Sri N.Venkat Rao was selected as F & ASO (Cl.II). He should undergo suitable training by incurring expenditure on his own account. However Port will pay interest free Advance and the same will be recovered in suitable, equal instalments.” The Chairman of the Trust approved the same, apart from the selection of the 4th respondent. On an application made by him, the petitioner was furnished the proceedings of the Selection Committee. It is evident that separate marks were allocated to different aspects. For ‘educational qualifications’, 50 marks were earmarked. For ‘professional ability & experience’, 30 marks; and for ‘interview’, 20 marks were allocated. The petitioner, who held a Post Graduate Degree in Sociology, Diploma in Security Management, Fire Fighting Techniques & First Aid from a recognized institution, a Certificate in Training Course in Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting and driving licence, was awarded 30 marks for qualifications, whereas the 4th respondent, who did not hold certificate from any recognized institution, was awarded same number of marks. The 3rd respondent, whose qualifications are apparently less, was awarded 35 marks. Though the petitioner and the 4th respondent are ex-servicemen, and despite the fact that the petitioner had undergone a superior training, the selection committee awarded 10 marks to the petitioner and 20 marks to the 4th respondent under the heading of ‘professional ability & experience’. Both of them were awarded 10 marks each in the interview. The 3rd respondent was awarded 20 and 15 marks respectively under those heads. The basic requirement, as to the verification of qualifications, was totally given a go bye, by the Selection Committee. The sole basis for inclusion of the name of the 3rd respondent in the list of candidates appears to be the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent. The undue haste with which, it was processed and the nature of recommendation made by the Manager, who does not figure anywhere in the selection process, disclose the extent to which the selection process was interfered with. The various steps taken by the Chairman, to ensure entry for the 3rd respondent to the selection process, reflect the lack of transparency and objectivity in the matter. In addition to that, the acts and omissions of different authorities, including the selection committee, rendered the entire selection process untenable. There is nothing on record to disclose that the Chairman had passed any specific order, relaxing the age limits, in favour of the 3rd respondent. In fact, there is no provision for relaxation of age limits. In its endorsement, the Selection Committee proceeded as though the Chairman relaxed the age limit in favour of the 3rd respondent. The same is evident from its note, which was extracted above. Though the Selection Committee did not express any opinion as to the further requirement of training for the 4th respondent, the Senior Officer made an endorsement to the effect that he must undergo training at his own cost. A perusal of the entire record reveals that it was only in relation to the petitioner, that no objection was raised as to his eligibility or possession of qualifications, whereas, at one level or the other, the cases of respondents 3 and 4 were kept outside consideration. A situation, comparable to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, is brought about. A candidate, who was found eligible in all respects through out, was excluded, while those, who were found to be not possessing any requisite qualifications and incurring disqualifications, were selected and appointed. This Court is of the view that the entire process lacks objectivity and transparency and the selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the selection and consequential appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Fire and Assistant Safety Officers of the 1st respondent-Trust are set aside. It is directed that the matter shall be considered by the Selection Committee once again, strictly in accordance with Rules and after thorough scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J) Date: 25.06.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13625 of 2006 Date: .06.2008 JSU