2020 (3) TMI 691 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment to the post of Income Tax Inspectors - Arathi Sarah Sunil challenged the selection and the rank list on the ground that she has to be placed first. She impleaded all the four persons placed above her including Alwin Francis and Liksy Joseph in the O.A. 156/2017. Notices were issued. Alwin Francis appeared, Liksy Joseph failed to appear - HELD THAT - The learned counsel appearing for Liksy Joseph however submits that in the O.A. the contention raised was only as to whether Arathi Sarah Sunil is entitled to be placed as the first rank holder among the five. The question of disqualification for reason of non-production of the NOC came later and hence she had approached the Tribunal within time, against such disqualification by O.A.399/2018. She has also filed an appeal from the O.A. filed by Arathi Sarah Sunil and if this Court allows the O.P. against the order in O.A.399/2018 and Liksy Joseph is considered for appointment necessarily Arathi Sarah Sunil will lose her appointment. Alwin Francis submits that there is only a consideration directed in the Tribunal s order and he being the first among the three, necessarily has to be given the appointment if the Department finds favour with his contentions for not producing the NOC within time. The Department however submits that as of now the Department would like to go for a fresh selection. It is also submitted that Arathi Sarah Sunil was offered appointment as a Tax Assistant, which she declined. It is also argued that though the team in which Arathi Sarah Sunil was included, obtained a bronze medal in a World Championship, she had not played and was merely a substitute in the team. This was the only claim for considering her as the first rank holder as raised in the O.A., which cannot be countenanced. We are of the opinion that there being no infirmity in the selection conducted, we need not interfere with the selection as such and the Department s prayer to permit them to conduct a fresh selection is declined. We also are not inclined to dwell upon the claim raised as to the ranking being wrong. The further issue is as to who are to be appointed to the two posts. In this circumstances, the first aspect to be looked at is the disqualification of two candidates. We find that since there are two vacancies of Income Tax Inspectors, Arathi Sarah Sunil , who has been directed to be appointed by the Tribunal gets the first post available. The case of Alwin Francis has to be considered by the Department itself as to whether any exemption can be granted insofar as the NOC not being produced along with the application which later is filed with the Department. The same shall be considered within a period of two months from today. We are informed that Arathi Sarah Sunil has not been issued with any appointment order, because of the pending litigations. The appointment order of Arathi Sarah Sunil shall be issued within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appointment of sports persons to the post of Income Tax Inspectors.
2. Challenge to selection and rank list.
3. Disqualification of candidates due to non-submission of NOC.
4. Consideration of subsequent events by the Tribunal.
5. Equitable considerations for disqualified candidates.
6. Appointment process and pending litigations.

Analysis:

1. Appointment of Sports Persons:
Two original petitions were filed by an aggrieved individual and two by the Department regarding the appointment of sports persons, including badminton players and an athlete, to the post of Income Tax Inspectors and Tax Assistants. The eligibility of the applicants was not in dispute, and they were ranked for selection.

2. Challenge to Selection and Rank List:
A dispute arose when a rank list was published with five rank holders, where the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rank holders challenged the selection. The Tribunal considered the matter, but specific contentions were not thoroughly examined. Subsequently, two candidates were disqualified for not submitting the necessary NOC.

3. Disqualification Due to Non-Submission of NOC:
The Tribunal directed the appointment of the 5th rank holder due to disqualification of two candidates for not providing NOCs. One candidate, who had a reasonable case for not submitting the NOC due to medical reasons, was allowed consideration by the Tribunal.

4. Consideration of Subsequent Events:
The Tribunal directed the Department to consider granting relaxation to the disqualified candidate who was on medical leave during the application period. Another disqualified candidate approached the Tribunal seeking similar consideration but was declined due to late filing and non-disclosure of employment details.

5. Equitable Considerations for Disqualified Candidates:
The disqualified candidates faced issues with the submission of NOCs from their employers. One candidate produced an NOC from a Senior Officer, which was deemed insufficient. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of disclosing employment details and submitting NOCs as per the notification requirements.

6. Appointment Process and Pending Litigations:
The Court found no infirmity in the selection process and declined the Department's request for a fresh selection. The appointment of candidates to the available posts was determined, with one candidate being directed for appointment and the other's case left for the Department's consideration. The Court directed the issuance of appointment orders within specified timelines.

In conclusion, the original petitions were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their respective costs, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements and equitable considerations in the appointment process.