Injustice done in providing employment on contract basis

          With due regards I am to say that one of my friend had been working as a Resource Person (Academic) in Urdu Language in a Central Government Department in Patiala w.e.f. 3^rd January 2007 on a the basis of stop gap arrangement and was assigned a project ‘Reading Comprehension Course in Urdu’ for the teacher trainees on which he am working with great sincerity and dedication.

The services of all the Resource Persons (academic as well as project) including him were terminated and they were asked to join the Centre on 18^th of May, 2009.

            As per an  announcement made by the concerned Central Government Department regarding engaging of Resource Persons (Academic) for the session 2009-10; my friend possessing the desirable qualifications and experience applied for the post of Resource Person (Academic) for Urdu language through proper channel.

            On 12^th June, 2009 my friend was intimated by the office of that Central Government Department where he was working as Resource Person Urdu (academic) that the names of the selected Resource Persons have been officially declared and that he has not been selected by the selection panel for the post of Resource Person (Academic) for Urdu Language and that his present services are also being discontinued with immediate effect.

            It is apparent from the list of the selected Resource Persons of Urdu language (using RTI act 2005) that the selection panel didn’t adhered on the criteria of selection laid by that Central Government Department in its advertisement/announcement for the engagement of the Resource Persons for the session 2009-10.

            In the advertisement/announcement it was mentioned that the desirable qualification is Ph.D in Linguistics, Comparative Philology or in Indian Languages and also that preference will be given to those who have passed NET/JRF examinations. Regarding the age limit it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement/announcement that the age should not exceed 35 years as on 1^st June 2009.  It is further stated that the concerned department didn’t mentioned in the announcement related to the appointment of the Resource Persons (academic) that the Rules of recruitment will later be relaxed in terms of age and qualification.

Despite possessing the desired qualifications i.e. Ph. D. (Urdu) in 2004, NET (Urdu) cleared in June 2000, M.A. (Urdu) along with 2.5 years teaching experience in the same Central Government Department and attending various other workshops and seminars of the concerned department my friend was not selected as the Resource Person (Academic).

Despite procuring the 5^th rank in the merit list which was short listed by the selection panel his candidature was not treated as qualified for the post of Resource Person (Academic) for Urdu language whereas the candidates possessing lesser qualification than him, exceeding 35 years of age and holding much lesser rank than him (i.e. 7^th and 12^th rank) in the merit list were preferred to be the ones in the selected list of the Resource Persons for the session 2009-10. No written test/interview was conducted for the selection.

My friend sent several representations to the Director of the concerned department to do justice with him but all was in vain.   Alternatively my friend filed an application using RTI Act 2005 to know the answers in the form of material information to derive to the fact that why he was not selected despite possessing the desirable qualification and experience and possessing a top rank in the merit list. In the reply the Director of that Department wrote that the final selection was done after giving proper weightage to publications, participation in department’s workshops/seminars etc. and SC/ST reservations along with academic qualifications. But the candidate holding 7^th rank in the merit list was finally selected as Resource Person (Academic) for teaching Urdu Language at Patiala bypassing/ignoring the candidate holding 5^th rank in the merit list. The academic qualifications of the candidate holding 5^th rank in the merit list is higher than that of the candidate holding 7^th rank. In terms of Publications none amongst both had any publications, and in terms of Participation in Workshops, Seminars etc. of the concerned department the former has actively participated in various Workshops and Seminars of the concerned department where as the latter has no participation in his records. But still the latter was finally selected as Resource Person (Academic).

It was also mentioned in the advertisement that preference will be given to those who have passed NET/JRF examination. But 2 candidates were selected as Resource Persons (Academic) at the Lucknow Centre of the concerned department who didn’t possess the NET/JRF certificate ignoring the candidatures of those who were holding the same. This selection clearly reflects that the final selection was not done as per the procedure written by the Director of the concerned department but the candidate holding 7^th rank was finally selected using backdoor policy.

Regarding the reservation for SC/ST, it was not at all mentioned in the advertisement announced by the concerned department for the selection of Resource Persons (Academic) that there are a few seats/reservations for SC/ST/OBCs then on what basis the benefit of reservation was given.  A highly qualified candidate and holding 2^nd rank in the merit list of the candidates who had applied for Resource Person (Academic) in Punjabi Language within the same department was not selected in the very first stance despite being SC where as a candidate from general category who is less qualified than the former was selected. The selection of latter for Punjabi language corroborates that the reservation for SC/ST candidates was also not as per the provisions laid by Government of India but was meant to place backdoor candidates and that too only for Urdu Language.

Another question raised by my friend was that when it was advertised by the concerned department that only 3 Resource Persons (academic) each are required for Urdu, Kashmiri, Punjabi and Dogri languages at NRLC, Patiala and that when it was also not mentioned in the advertisement that the number of required Resource Person (academic) may increase or decrease as per requirement then on what basis 5 candidates were selected as Resource Persons (academic) in Punjabi language at Patiala.

In another question raised by my friend under RTI Act 2005 my friend had written to the Director of the concerned department that as per the recruitment rules of the Central Government the advertisement pertaining to the recruitment process against vacant posts should be advertised in the leading newspapers so as to provide equal opportunities for all the aspirants. If the advertisement/announcement was got published/advertised in the leading newspapers then the names of the newspapers may kindly be provided along with the exact date of the publication of the advertisement. If not then the reason why it was not felt important that the advertisement/announcement should be got published/advertised in the leading newspapers may kindly be explained. On this the Director of the concerned department has replied that as the engagement of Resource Persons (Academic) was on daily rate basis and is stop gap arrangement, it has been given limited advertisement on the website of the department and also by circulation among various Universities in India.  This reply is also not an authentic reply.  The 10 months language training course for which these Resource Persons (academic) are engaged is given nation wide publicity by publishing it’s advertisement in the leading national dailies so that the benefit of this training programme can be availed by every deserving candidate/student but for the same training programme where highly qualified, experienced and skilled lecturers are required to train the students in the language learning the advertisement for the selection of Resource Persons/Guest Lecturers is given limited advertisement and that too only on the website of the concerned department itself clearly explains that the concerned authorities of the department had intentionally debarred the equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment resulting to favoritism and nepotism.

Another question was raised by my friend regarding age relaxation to over aged candidates whereas in the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that the age of the candidate should not exceed 35 years as on 1^st June, 2009 and that as per the UPSC’s and Supreme Courts’ order age relaxation can not be given to contract employees. On this the Director of the concerned department has replied that by and large recruitment rules notified for regular lecturers are followed in engaging Resource Persons and that since this engagement is on daily rate basis and only stop gap arrangement hence relaxation is given in the case of candidates holding better merit. This reply of Director is also not authentic.

The UPSC and Supreme Court of India have clear orders in the age relaxation for contract employees that a contract employee is not a government employee hence he can not claim for any sort of relaxation in terms of age or qualification. Further the age relaxation given by the esteemed recruitment commissions are 5 years for SC/ST/OBCs and also for regular government employees and 10 years for Physically Handicapped person. A prima facie examination of the selected candidates reveals that Mr. XXX who has been selected (and who is being regularly selected in each academic year) as a Resource Person (Academic) in Punjabi language for the session 2009-10 is 46 years old i.e. he has been given relaxation of 11 years. Mr. YYY who has been selected as Resource Person Urdu (Academic) at Solan Centre of the Department is of 48 years i.e. he has been given relaxation of 13 years on what grounds? Where as there were other candidates equally or highly qualified and experienced than these both candidates.

As per the Director’s statement of the concerned department that as the engaging of Resource Persons (Academic) is a stop gap arrangement therefore the age factor is not strictly insisted upon and that the candidates possessing higher qualification and experience could have been given age relaxation then why wasn’t the same thing mentioned in the advertisement?

Had it been clearly mentioned in the advertisement that relaxation in terms of age and qualification would be given to the deserving candidates, many more people would have applied for the same who did not apply for the same posts after reading the maximum age limit as 35 years on 1^st June, 2009.

The powers of relaxation in terms of age, qualification and experience should have been reflected in the advertisement itself creating avenue for many others to apply for consideration of their candidature.

It must be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and age limit and when the selection is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the selection authority and the selected candidate concerned.  The leveled are all those who had similar qualification, experience and fall in the same age category but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the desired qualification or were over age than that mentioned in the advertisement.  It amounts to a fraud on public to select persons with inferior qualification and experience in such circumstance unless it is clearly stated in the advertisement that the qualifications and age are relaxable.

            Kindly suggest what are the remedies for getting justice in this case.