2025:KER:23463 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 OP (CAT) NO. 89 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023 IN OA NO.943 OF 2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS 5 & 6, 8 AND 13 IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION: 1 NARINDER KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. SH VIJAY KUMAR, SAINI,R/O. H.NO. 5056, GALI NO. 01, NEW ADARSH NAGAR, KOTKHALSE, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB, PIN - 143003 2 VINIT, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA, VPO PILANA, DALAL PANA, TEHSIL KALANAUR, DISTRICT ROHTAK – 124202 NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 312, SANJAY COLONY, ROHTAK (HARYANA), PIN - 124001 3 HARISH CHANDER, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. DHANI RAM, HOUSE NO. 200, BACK SIDE GURUDWARA, DARIA, CHANDIGARH, PIN - 160101 4 PANKAJ KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. BALWANT SINGH, WARD NO. 03, O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 2 2025:KER:23463 VILLAGE PANAPARI HAR (182), DHIRA, DISTRICT, KANGRA – 176064, (HIMACHAL PRADESH), PIN – 176064. BY ADVS. GIRIJA K GOPAL K.N.VIGY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE , SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (N.W.), KOCHI.P.O, NAVAL BASE, KATARI BAGH, KOCHI, PIN - 682007 3 THE SOUTHERN COMMAND (HEADQUARTERS), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400104 BY ADV P.R.AJITH KUMAR THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 3 2025:KER:23463 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 19th day of March, 2025 AMIT RAWAL, J. 1. The question involved in this case is, can the Department change the rules of the game already set out in the notification inviting applications for filling up the post of Chowkidar (Khansama) in the Military Engineering Services. Respondents caused a notification on 28.09.2015 specifying the qualifications for the aforementioned post and assigned 100 marks, out of which 65 marks for the written test and 25 marks for the practical test, and 10 marks for the qualification. Two (2) days before the written test could be held, came out with an order Annexure A2 dated 28.01.2016, dispensing with the practical test and allotting the 25 marks to the written test, i.e., 90 marks for the written test and 10 marks for the qualification. All the candidates/aspirants who submitted applications participated in the written test but could not get qualified, which gave a cause of action O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 4 2025:KER:23463 to file the OA. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Model Recruitment Rules of 2013, 2019 and 2023 had been relied upon to establish that all the aforementioned rules contained the element of trade test. The decision of the respondents in doing away with the practical test based upon the speech of the Hon’ble Prime Minister on the independence day in the year 2015, was only with respect to the interview whereas the interview and practical test are paused apart. For Khansamas, the practical test is inevitable as, written test would not be sufficient to ascertain cooking skills. 2. Respondents contested the claim and stated that trade test/ practical was only for qualifying, but not essential for the purpose of selection. Learned Tribunal on analysis of the pleadings, dismissed the case. 3. Smt.Girija K. Gopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, raised the submission that the rules of game, as per the settled law, after having been notified, few days O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 5 2025:KER:23463 before the written test, cannot be changed. All the applicants/aspirants were hopeful of getting the employment as they had excellent cooking skills and would have obtained 100% marks in the practical test. But in the absence of practical test, written test cannot be a yardstick for assessing the qualities and capabilities of the Khansamas. 4. The model rules of 2013, subsequent to the notification in 2018 and 2021, envisage a trade test/ practical test for Khansamas. It is not understandable, for the period in question, how and in what manner the respondents dispensed with the practical test. Such an exercise is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and illegal. 5. On the other hand, Sri. Ajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India supported the finding of the Tribunal much less the stand taken in the reply statement and stated that the skill test was only a qualifying test and O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 6 2025:KER:23463 since there could be a possibility of partiality or biasness, the practical test was merged with the written test. All the aspirants could not have achieved the qualifying marks in the written test, therefore, there was no selection in pursuance to the notification of 2015, but did not deny the existence of the practical test in the pre- notification rules, i.e., 2013 and post- notification rules, i.e., 2018 and 2020, and submitted that, it is only for the qualifying purposes but not as a magna carta. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 7. No doubt, when the notification Annexure A1, on 28.09.2015, was caused, the department had fixed the qualification and assigned the marks of 100 by bifurcating it as 10 vis-a-vis qualifications, 65 marks for written test and 25 for practical test, but later merged the marks of 25 with the written test by raising the limit from 65 to 90. No doubt, the rules of game cannot be permitted O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 7 2025:KER:23463 to be changed, but the fact remains that all the applicants participated but not selected. 8. It is not a case that any of the candidate was selected and therefore it is a case of discrimination as enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also settled law that after having been participated, cannot assail the criteria, at the best, could have challenged the same by not participating in the written test. Be that as it may. Though the Department had not considered the aspect of interview vis-a-vis the trade test in a correct perspective, the fact remains that the interview as well as the practical test are not identical. There are different parameters and particularly for the post in question, without the practical test, the selection would not be possible. 9. In the absence of any discrimination, we cannot implore upon the department to undertake the task of selection again by incorporating the practical test, as the selection was in respect of O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 8 2025:KER:23463 the sanctioned post vacant in 2015.We have not been apprised as to what procedure has been followed to cause the aforementioned notification in view of the model rules of 2018 and 2021. In the absence of the same we would not be in a position to comment upon the conduct of the respondents. At the best, the petitioners are entitled to some compensation in terms of money but not in the proceedings under the administrative tribunal. We do not find any illegality and perversity. No ground for interference is made out. OP(CAT) stands dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE HKH/19.03.2025 O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 9 2025:KER:23463 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 89/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTICE NO. 20168/LRS 13-14/EIC 1 DATED 28/9/2015 ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28..01..2016 OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL [ PERSONAL ] MILITARY SERVICE ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT INFORMING ONE AMONG THE APPLICANTS TO APPEAR FOR DOCUMENT VERIFICATION ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RESULT DATED 13..12..2017 ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3..10..2018 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH IN OA NO. 060/00126/2018 ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3..5..2018 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF DOP & T LETTER NO. 39020/2/2016-ESTT [ B ] DATED 27..6..2016 ANNEXURE R2 A TRUE COPY OF SOP, 1997 ISSUED BY ENGINEER - IN - CHIEF'S BRANCH EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF OA NO.943/2018 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER ATTEMPTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 10 2025:KER:23463 31.5.2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 27.9.2019, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28..3..2023 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/00943/2018 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO. 39020/01/2013- ESTT(B) –PART DATED 29.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.F.NO.DPE-GM-01/0001/2015-GM- FTS-4857 DATED 14.12.2015 WAS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF OM NO 3/2/2009-DIR.(C) DATED 22.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE DOP&T PRESCRIBING MODEL RECRUITMENT RULES FOR VARIOUS POSTS IN CANTEENS/TIFFIN ROOMS LOCATED IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF DO & PT O.M NO 3/3/2018 – DIR (C) DATED 18.4.2018 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF O.M NO 11/2/2020 –DIR ( C) DATED 13.7.2021 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF O.M NO.03/02/2009-DIR (CAN) DATED 5.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MILITARY ENGINEER O.P.(CAT) No.89/2023 11 2025:KER:23463 SERVICES [KHANSAMA CHAWKIDAR] RECRUITMENT RULES, 2012