IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25742 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SURESH BABU, S/O.NARAYANA RAO, AGED 57 YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER, FACT COCHIN DIVISION, AMBALAMEDU-682 303, KOCHI, KERALA. BY ADV. SMT.K.NANDINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FERTILIZERS, NEW DELHI-110003. 2. THE SECRETARY,PUBLIC ENTERPRISES SELECTION BOARD(PESB), DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, BLOCK NO.14, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 3. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR(CMD), FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL-R1 ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR R2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SC,F.A.C.T-R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25742 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as General Manager in Cochin Division of Travancore Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (for short 'FACT' only). The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 application submitted by him in response to Ext.P5 advertisement issued by the second respondent Board for appointment to the post of Chairman and Managing Director (C.M.D) under FACT was not forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent. It is to redress the said grievance that this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly with the following prayers:- i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to forward the Ext.P3 application of the petitioner for the post of the CMD, FACT, Udyogamandal forthwith; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to treat the post of “General Manager (Co- ordination)” as par with “General Manager” for the purpose of counting experience for the post of CMD, W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 2 FACT, Udyogamandal; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for interview for the post of the CMD, FACT, Udyogamandal once he receives the Ext.P3 application of the petitioner forwarded by the 2nd respondent. 2. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent company has no authority to withhold Ext.P3 application submitted by him and the same should have been forwarded to the second respondent without any scrutiny. In fact, company has not been properly arrayed as a party in this Writ Petition. In the context of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is relevant to refer to Exts.P5 and P6. In Ext.P5, it is stated thus: “In case the relevant details are not received within the stipulated time, it will be assumed that there are no eligible candidates to be sponsored for the post.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Obviously, the copies of Ext.P5 have been circulated to the Chief Executives of other Central Public Sector undertakings and also to all Chief Secretaries of State Governments and Union Territories, including the third respondent. The above extracted portion would W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 3 undoubtedly suggest that they were supposed to sponsor only the eligible candidates. The word 'sponsor' means 'vouch for' and therefore, a sponsor has to make himself primarily responsible for his statement regarding the eligibility of a sponsored candidate. On being called for, to sponsor eligible candidates for the post of CMD in FACT, those who are competent to make such sponsoring are bound to shoulder the initial responsibility to get prima facie, satisfied regarding the eligibility of candidates who offered themselves for sponsoring by putting applications. In short, they are not supposed to act only as a post office whilst it cast a duty upon them to conduct an initial scrutiny to satisfy the eligibility of one's candidature. Therefore, I cannot countenance with the contention of the petitioner that the third respondent got authority to withhold application at no circumstances and he is bound to forward the application of the petitioner despite finding the petitioner ineligible based on the prescribed qualifications with respect to experience. In that context, certain provisions under Ext.P6 assumes relevance. Ext.P6 is the job description for the post issued by the second respondent. Clause 3 of Ext.P6 is relevant in the case of the petitioner and the same reads thus: “The minimum length of service required in the eligible scale will be one year for internal candidates, and two years for others as on the date of vacancy.” W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 4 Thus it is evident from Ext.P6 that the minimum length of service required in the eligible scale referred to under clause 3 will be one year for internal candidates and two years for others on the date of vacancy. Going by Ext.P6, the date of vacancy of CMD is 13.4.2010. Therefore, to earn eligibility, an internal candidate must have minimum length of service of one year in the aforesaid eligible scales. Admittedly, as is obvious from Ext.P3, the petitioner was promoted to the post of General Manager carrying the scale of pay of Rs.20500-500-26500 only on 23.4.2010. It would thus go to show that the petitioner has not even completed a month in that post as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Evidently, the petitioner is an internal candidate. The eligible scales referred to above as regards Central Public Sector Executives given under clause iii are as follows:- (i) Rs.7250-8250/- (pre 1.1.1992 scale) } (ii) Rs.9500-11500/- (post 1.1.1992 scale) } with (iii) Rs.20500-26500/- (post 1.1.1997 scale)} Industrial (iv) Rs.51300-73000/- (post 1.1.2007 scale) }DA or (v) Rs.18400-22400 with Central DA (pre-revised) (vi) Rs.37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- (Revised 1.1.2006) W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 5 Ext.P3 application would reveal that he is presently holding the post of General Manager, FACT Cochin Division carrying a scale of pay Rs.20500-26500 which is item No.(iii) in the scales of pay given under clause iii. It would further reveal that the petitioner had no experience in any other posts carrying scales of pay referred to as item Nos.(i) to (vi). The petitioner relied on proviso to clause 11 which reads thus:- “ Provided that minimum qualification is relaxable in the case of internal candidates with sound and adequate background and experience.” (emphasis supplied) But, it would reveal that it will not save the situation for the petitioner. Firstly, as per the same, relaxation is possible only with respect to minimum qualification and not with respect to experience. Secondly, the minimum qualification is relaxable only in the case of those internal candidates with sound and adequate background and experience. The petitioner who lacks the minimum length of service cannot, therefore, place reliance on the same. In the said context another aspect also assumes relevance. As already noted, he had not put in service against any post carrying the other eligible scales of pay referred to as item Nos. (i), (ii), (iv) to (vi). The contention of the petitioner is that he has submitted Ext.P3 application as early as on 27.6.2010. Being a person W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 6 who holds an executive post, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance regarding the last date as the last date for receipt of applications as per Ext.P6. Evidently, as per Ext.P6, 12.7.2010 was fixed as the last date for receipt of applications. In Ext.P6, it is stated thus:- “Last date of receipt of applications in PESB is 12th July 2010. No application shall be entertained under any circumstances after the stipulated dated. Incomplete applications are liable to be REJECTED.” In short, as per Ext.P6, an application was received after the said date viz., 12.7.2010 would not be entertained at all. The petitioner who is fully astute to the said aspects, after submitting Ext.P3 application and on finding that the third respondent is slow to forward the said application to the second respondent should have taken appropriate action in time. Admittedly, this Writ Petition has been filed only on 13.8.2010 ie., after one month from the date fixed as the last date for receipt of applications by the second respondent. I am of the view that on that short ground, the petitioner is not entitled to get the remedy sought for. Prayer No.2 in this Writ Petition would suggest that the petitioner himself is of the view that going by the qualifications prescribed in the notification with respect to experience, he could not be treated as qualified and eligible. In that context, at the risk of the repetition prayer No.2 is extracted hereunder: W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 7 “ to issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to treat the post of “General Manager (Co-ordination)” as par with “General Manager” for the purpose of counting experience for the post of CMD, FACT, Udyogamandal” (emphasis supplied) It is obvious that the petitioner is praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to treat the post of General Manager (Co-ordination) as par with General Manager for the purpose of counting experience for the post of CMD, FACT, Udyogamandal. Evidently, the said post is not one that carries any of the eligible scales given under item (i) to (vi) extracted above. It would also suggest two aspects. The first one is that the petitioner himself admits the fact that the third respondent is having competency to look into the eligibility to sponsor internal candidates lest the petitioner would not have prayed for a direction to the third respondent to treat the post of General Manager(Co-ordination) as par with General Manager. The other aspect is, even according to him, he is short of prescribed experience and he could earn eligibility only if prayer No.2 is granted. In other words, indirectly, the petitioner admits the fact that he was not eligible as on the date of vacancy. In the circumstances, I find no merits in the contentions of the petitioner. Since, W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 8 going by the prescribed qualifications, the petitioner was not qualified as on the last date of receipt of applications, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction and to compel authorities to forward the application taking into account the fact that the last date for receipt of application was 12.7.2010. As already noted, even the company was not properly impleaded in this Writ Petition. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 9 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.25742/2010 10