Rahmathulla M.C. and Ameenulla P.N. v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/13TH ASWINA 1934 OP (CAT).No. 3124 of 2012 (Z)** **----------------------------OA.365/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** **PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS:** **------------------------** **1. RAHMATHULLA M.C., AGED 14 YEARS S/O.K.P.ATTAKOYA, AGED 24 YEARS, MELACHEDAM HOUSE KALPENI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP PIN-682557.** **2. AMEENULLA P.N.,** - **S/O.B.C.CHERIYAKOYA, AGED 21 YEARS PUTHIYATHANODA HOUSE, KADAMAT ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN-682556.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN** **SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN** **SRI.B.BIPIN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE ADMINISTRATOR** - **UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.** **2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,** - **UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP** **KAVARATTI ISLAND-682555.** **3. MOHAMMED SIYAD T., S/O.MOHAMMED B., BANDER HOUSE, AGATHI ISLAND** - **UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.** **4. HAMEED T.M. S/O.LATE ABUSALA M.I., THAHIRAMANZIL HOUSE** - **AGATTI ISLAND** **UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.** ## **5. NIAMATHULLAH U.,** - **S/O.SYED B., UNNAM HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND** **UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.** **6. ABDUL SALAM S.C. S/O.SYED T.C., SARECHETTA HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.** **OP (CAT).No. 3124 of 2012** **-2-** **7. TARIQ ANWAR B.K., S/O.SAYED KOYA N.C., BELIYAKULAM, AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.** **8. MOHAMMED SAYED M.P. S/O.NALLA KOYA T.T., MADAPURA HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.** **9. MUNEER, S/O.HAMEED MUNEER SALEENA MANZIL HOUSE, MINICOY ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682559.** **10. SADIQUALI C.H.P. S/O.CHERIYAKOYA K.P., CHENAMKOTTIYATHAPURA HOUSE AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.** **11. HUSSAIN P.P. S/O.YOUSUFF K.K. RESIDING AT PUTHYA PURATHAKKAL HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.** **12. MUHAMMED ABDUL OFOOR P.M.M., S/O.ABDUL KADER NAHA K., PUTHIYA VEEDU HOUSE ANDORTH ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682551.** **R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (CAT).No. 3124 of 2012** APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA.365/2011 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. I) ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION F.NO.1/30/2010 ESTT(POL) DATED 18/1/2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. II) ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY O THE REVEISED SELECT LIST F.NO.1/30/2011 ESTT(POL) DATED 19/4/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. COMPLILATION II --------------- III) ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO.1/30/2010 ESTT(POL) DATED 31/12/2010. IV) ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION BY F.NO.1/30/2010-ESTT(POL) DATED 14/2/2011. V) ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT F.NO.1/30/2010-ESTT (POL)/928 DATED 1/3/2011. VI) ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.1/30/2010-ESTT(POL) DATED 28/3/2011. VII) ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/4/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE IST APPLICANT. VIII) ANNEXURE A7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/4/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT. IX) ANNEXURE A7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD APPLICANT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 17/4/2011. X) ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO.1/1/86/ESTT. (POL)(1) DATED 30/6/1995. XI) ANNEXRUE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.12/37/2005-SERVICES DATED 28/4/2007. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/7/2012 IN OA.365/2011 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN OA.365 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRTIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. I) ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT. II) ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPIES OF THE REPLIES GIVEN TO THE APPLICANTS. **OP (CAT).No. 3124 of 2012** **-2-** III) ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 3,4,5 AND 11 IN OA.365/2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXHIBIT P4 REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 12TH RESPONDENT IN OA.365/2011. I) ANNEXURE R12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE 12TH RESPONDENT AT UT LEVEL SPORTS COMPETITION DATED 6/10/2009. II) ANNEXURE R12(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/3/2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P7 REPLY STATEMENT. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **PS TO JUDGE** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **O.P(CAT).No. 3124 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of October, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J.** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory of Lakshadweep. 2. The two petitioners herein were applicants before Central Administrative Tribunal along with another person. It is not in dispute, the first respondent Administrator notified 84 vacancies of Police Constable in Union Territory of Lakshadweep as per Annexure A1 dated 31.12.2010 declaring the eligibility criteria and also several other details to be mentioned in the application as per the notification. However, by virtue of Annexure A2 dated 18.1.2011, Corrigendum was issued calling the prospective applicants to furnish training certificates like NCC and State and National Level Sports Participation Certificates in sports. It is also not in dispute that the last date for submission of application along with necessary documents was indicated as 1.2.2011 at Annexures A1 and A2. Grievance of the applicants before Tribunal was, once game of selection process commenced with the _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ 2 issuance of Annexure A1, there was no justification on the part of the respondent authorities to change the rule of game seeking additional information in the form of certificates so as to give weightage to such certificates of the candidates. It is also contended that apart from giving such concession as per Annexure A2, certain candidates were allowed to submit applications on the date of interview and so also subsequent to the interview, which would affect chances of the applicants securing job as Police Constable, though they secured higher marks than others in the qualifying examination. 3. The Tribunal, taking into consideration various aspects of the matter, ultimately opined, there was no impropriety or irregularity in the selection process warranting interference by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before us challenging the order of the Tribunal on various grounds. 4. According to the petitioners, when once last date was prescribed for submission of application or document, recruitment authority is prohibited from accepting any application or document after the cut off date in the absence of extension of time. Therefore, in the absence of extension of time prescribed at _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ 3 Annexures A1 and A2, there was no justification to receive certificates from several candidates not only subsequent to 1.2.2011, but also on the date of interview and even after the date of the interview. Awarding of bonus marks based on the certificates produced by the candidates was introduced and the same unheard on earlier occasion, is the stand of the petitioners. It was also contended that subsequent to the interview, several candidates were allowed to submit certificates and this is nothing, but serious lapse on the part of the selecting authority not only receiving the certificates, but also granting weightage marks after expiry of time stipulated at Annexure A2. 5. As against this, learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory of Lakshadweep contends, within 18 days from the date of notification at Annexure A1, Corrigendum was issued as per Annexure A2 only with an intention to give equal opportunity to all the prospective applicants to bring on record additional qualification, which would be necessary for the post they were applying, therefore, there was no discrimination on the part of the authority in issuing Annexure A2. It was further contended by Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ 4 of Lakshadweep, the certificates required to be produced either NCC training or sports participation had to be dated prior to the cut off date fixed at Annexures A1 and A2, i.e., 1.2.2011, therefore, they were not accommodating any prospective applicant to obtain certificates in order to create a disadvantage to other qualified candidates. Hence, there was no justification in the allegation made by the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision reported in _**Binu Kumar v. Public Service Commission**_ (2010 (1) KLT 1024). We have gone through the said judgment. In the said case, a column was given in the application form itself to indicate their experience as sportsman, therefore, His Lordship held, in the absence of opting out to give such details in the application form itself it was not open to the candidate to furnish details subsequently after submission of the application claiming additional weightage marks. As against this, learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory submits, the facts in the reported decision are entirely different from the facts of the present case, as the Corrigendum was not issued at the instance of the prospective applicants, but the selecting authority itself took the _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ 5 decision in order to give weightage of marks to certain candidates, who have gained experience as participants in NCC or participants in State or national level sports. In the present case, there were totally 84 vacancies as on the date of notification at Annexure A1. 7. It is not in dispute that applicants have to be from Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Apparently, the applicants would be coming from various Islands in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. It is also not in dispute that it would be very difficult to get qualified persons in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep whenever recruitment process is taken up. Apparently, the post itself indicates special qualified persons alone will be selected, who not only have eligible criteria so far as academic qualification, but physical endurance. Whoever qualifies so far as physical endurance and academic qualification alone will be considered for selection to the post of Police Constable. NCC and participation in sports definitely is an additional qualification to consider a candidate for the post of Police Constable, as such training would add to the quality that is required for the post of Police Constable. In that view of the matter, when Annexure A2 _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ 6 notification was issued on 18.1.2011, much prior to the last date for submission of the applications on 1.2.2011, there was no discrimination by selecting authority to provide an opportunity to selective candidates. Therefore, question of changing the rule of game would not have arisen at that point of time. 8. Then coming to the other argument, even after cut off date of 1.2.2011, candidates were permitted to submit such certificates, one should not forget the restriction or condition imposed while allowing such submission of certificates. The certificate had to be date prior to last date for submission of application, i.e., 1.2.2011. This was only with a view of see that no candidate would secure such certificate only to secure additional weightage of marks and necessary qualification or the certificate had to be as on the date of submitting their application and not subsequent. Therefore, though the date of submission of certificate is subsequent to 1.2.2011, either on the date of interview or subsequent to the date of interview, the certificates had to be prior to 1.2.2011, therefore, there was equal opportunity to all the applicants, who had such certificates to submit the same for consideration by the selection committee. 7 _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ 9. When we look at the actual weightage marks that were intended to be given by the candidates having NCC certificate or Sports Certificate, NCC certificate with 'B' grade would be entitled for 1% and 'C' grade for 2%. So far as sports certificates, State level participation would entitle such candidate to have 1% and national level participation 2%. Ultimately, those candidates, who were successful in physical endurance alone would be considered for the final selection taking into consideration average of the marks obtained by them in the basic qualification required plus additional marks as bonus marks of weightage marks whoever have NCC certificate or sports certificate. Whoever have these certificates depending upon their grade and level of participation, they would secure such marks prescribed by the authority. Ultimately, this process adopted by the authority confirm it was aiming at securing better qualified persons who withstand arduous training as a Police Constable. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in saying, there was no impropriety or illegality on the part of the authority in adopting such method. The facts stated in _**Binu Kumar's case**_ (Supra) are entirely different from the facts of the 8 _**OP(CAT).3124/12**_ present case. In the present case, the bonus marks or wieghtage marks was a step at the instance of the selecting authority and not at the instance of the applicants. Therefore, there is no discrimination or favouritism shown by the selecting authority so far as the applicants are concerned. Depending upon the qualification they had including the merit, the selection process was conducted by the respondents. We find no good ground to interfere with the opinion expressed by Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. **MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** **vgs**