National Commission for Scheduled Tribes ***** Minutes of the discussions held by JS, NCST with the officers

of Department of Atomic Energy on 21.5.2007 at 11.30 A.M. in respect of cases of (i) Shri Kiran Chand Arya regarding his getting employment in Raja Ramanna Centre for Advance Technology (RRCAT), Indore, (ii) denial of promotion to Shri N.L. Meena, Scientific Assistant, Heavy Water Board, Rawatbhata as Scientific Officer on the basis of his acquiring additional qualification of AMIE, and (iii) general grievances of ST employees working in RRCAT, Indore based on the representations of Shri R.K. Meena, President, Atomic Energy SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association, RRCAT, Indore Shri Gajendra Singh Rajukhedi, Hon'ble Vice-Chairman could not come to office due to his pre-occupations in some other important and urgent matters and therefore, the hearing could not be held. Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes was also not available at 11.30 A.M. as he was out of station in connection with some personal work during the weekend and due to delayed landing of the flight, he could not reach office in time. In view of this position, JS, NCST decided to take advantage of the presence of the Department of Atomic Energy's (DAE) officers and to discuss the above mentioned cases with them. The Department of Atomic Energy was represented by Dr.Anil Kakodkar, Secretary, DAE and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Mumbai, Shri C.V. Ananda Bose, JS(R&D), DAE, Mumbai, Ms. B. Chavan, Director (R&D), DAE, Mumbai, (iii) Shri R.K. Saini, Director (P&A), HWB, Mumbai (iv) Ms Lathika Goel, DS(I&M), DAE, Mumbai, (v) Shri T.N. Nair, CAO, RRCAT, Indore, (vi) Shri K. Abraham, DS, DAE, Mumbai and (vii) Shri S. Mendiratta, JS(BS),DAE, New Delhi. The Secretary, DAE came to the Commission to participate in the hearing but when he was informed that VC had not come and his officers were discussing the matter with JS, NCST, he left. Case of Shri Kiran Chand Arya [F.No.R-10/Atomic Energy-1/2006/ST/SSW/RU-III] 2.1 It was noted that Shri R.K. Meena, President, Atomic Energy SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, RRCAT, Indore, had represented to the Commission that Shri Kiran Chand Arya, who was presently working as Draughtsman, A in Raja Ramana Centre for Advance Technology (RRCAT), Indore had been appointed on the basis of a false ST certificate. When the Commission took up the matter with the Department of Atomic Energy, it was informed in February, 2006 that Shri Arya had submitted a caste certificate of 'Lohar' (ST) at the time of his initial appointment in BARC, Mumbai and that on receipt of a complaint from SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, the matter was examined and it was found that at the time of his initial appointment in BARC, Shri Arya had stated in his application that he belonged to Lohar caste (ST). The perusal of the caste certificate dated 25.9.1974 issued by the ADM, Deharadun, however, revealed that Shri Arya belonged to 'Pichidi Jati' (Backward Class). It was also noted that in a subsequent declaration given by Shri Arya in March, 1978, he had mentioned that he belongs to Lohar caste. In the attestation form submitted by him on 24.5.1978 also he had mentioned against Col. No.9 (b) as Scheduled Tribe (Lohar). On investigation it was found out that the Lohar caste is not notified as Scheduled Tribe in the list of Scheduled Tribes in respect of the State of Uttaranchal from where Shri Arya hails. Even the list of tribes from the undivided Uttar Pradesh out of which Uttaranchal State was carved out also does not mention Lohar as Scheduled Tribe.

2.2 It was further noted that in view of the position stated above, the Commission wrote to Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy vide its letter dated 27.12.2006 to take appropriate action against Shri K.C. Arya who had obtained appointment fraudulently by producing a false ST certificate. Their attention was also drawn to the instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. dated 17.4.1953 which provide that in case the verification revealed that the candidate's claim that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe is found to be false, his services should be terminated. In reply, the Department of Atomic Energy wrote to this Commission vide their letter dated 19 February, 2007 that the recruitment records relating to Shri Arya's initial appointment as Draughtsman, A in BARC w.e.f. 9.6.1978 were not readily available and, therefore, it would not be possible to confirm whether Shri Arya had been extended any concession/ relaxation as are admissible to candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes at the time of his initial appointment. It was further stated by the Department of Atomic Energy that it had been confirmed from the available records that Shri Arya was not extended any concession/ relaxation available to ST employees at the time of his subsequent promotions in the Department. Further Shri Arya also did not seek any concession applicable to employees belonging to ST at the time of allotment of departmental accommodation. It was also mentioned that the name of Shri Arya had not been shown in the SC/ST reservation roster at RRCAT consequent to his transfer from BARC to RRCAT in the year 1986. It was further stated by the Department of Atomic Energy that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this did not appear to be a fit case for taking action against Shri K.C. Arya in terms of instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.4.1953 (referred to above). It was further noted that the Commission vide its letter dated 8 March, 2007 wrote back to the Department of Atomic Energy that it was not correct on their part to say that they did not have the information about the initial recruitment of Shri K.C. Arya and that Shri Arya himself in the declaration form had mentioned his caste as Lohar in the Column for Scheduled Tribe and also that the certificate dated 25.9.1974 mentioned that Shri K.C. Arya belong to 'Pichidi Jati' (Backward Class) and, therefore, that certificate was not valid for employment under the Govt. of India since reservation for OBC was not available in 1977 and the State-wise lists of OBCs for employment in Govt. of India were notified in September, 1993 and onwards. The Commission also requested to produce before it (i) the Service Book (ii) reservation roster for the post of Draughtsman 'A' against which Shri K.C. Arya was initially appointed and (iii) file relating to selection process for Draughtsman 'A' with reference to appointment of Shri Arya. 2.3. It was in the above background that the case of Shri Kiran Chand Arya was discussed by JS, NCST with the officers of the Department of Atomic Energy. During the discussions the Department of Atomic Energy produced a photocopy of the minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee held on 28 February and 1 & 2 March, 1978 for selection for the post of Draughtsman 'A' (Mechanical) which indicated that the Selection Committee had approved appointment of 7 persons for the said post and Shri K.C. Arya figured at Sl.No.3. It was stated that the word 'ST' had not been written against his name and it showed that he had not been selected as an ST category candidate. The Commission also inspected the Service Book of Shri Arya which had been brought by the officers and found that on the first page of Service Book relating to Bio-Data, Shri Arya had been shown as ST, Lohar against Column No.5 relating to "If a member of SC/ST, particulars of SC/ST". It had also been indicated that the claim of Shri Arya being ST had been verified from the certificate issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Deharadun. The Commission observed that the certificate in question dated 25.9.1974 did not mention anywhere the word 'ST' and, therefore, to that extent, the

statement of the Department of Atomic Energy that his claim of being ST was verified from the certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Deharadun was wrong. The Commission also wanted to see the reservation roster for the post of Draughtsman 'A' against which Shri Arya was initially appointed. The officers of the DAE, however, failed to produce the reservation roster stating that it was not available. Similarly the Department of Atomic Energy also failed to show the file relating to the selection of Shri Arya for the post of Draughtsman 'A'. JS, NCST also had discussions with the petitioners i.e. the representatives of the SC/ST Employees Association RRCAT- Indore after the meeting with the officers of the Department of Atomic Energy. It was stated by the petitioner that the Department of Atomic Energy themselves in their letter dated 9 April, 2006 sent to this Commission had admitted that except for the case of Shri Arya there was no other case of false caste certificate holders in RRCAT and that caste status of all other SC/ST employees in RRCAT had been verified and found to be in order and further that the progress in the case of Shri Arya will be intimated in due course of time after collecting additional information from BARC. The petitioners also stated that in the list of employees belonging to SC/ST, the Centre for Advance Technology, Indore had shown the name of Shri K.C. Arya as ST at Sl.No.185. It was further stated by them that in the Service Book of Shri Arya, he had been shown as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 2.4. It was pointed out by the Commission during the discussions that the post of Draughtsman 'A' belonged to Group 'C' post and that there was reservation for SC/ST in Group 'C' posts in direct recruitment since 1950. It was also stated by the Commission that as per the 40-point model reservation roster for direct recruitment (which was applicable in 1978), Point No.4 was reserved for Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, one post out of 7 posts of Draughtsman 'A' which had been advertised by the Department of Atomic Energy in 1978 must have been reserved for ST candidate and, therefore, it was difficult to accept the assumption of the Department of Atomic Energy that Shri Arya's initial appointment was not on the basis of the benefit of reservation as Scheduled Tribe on the strength of the ST certificate produced by him. The Commission also observed that Shri Arya would have produced a certificate of belonging to ST only with a view to get the benefits available to the members of Scheduled Tribe in the matter of appointment in Central Government Services by way of reservation etc. and there could be no other intention in producing the certificate in question and now that it had been found that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe as claimed by him, it would not be advisable to overlook this misrepresentation of material facts and to allow him to continue in service. It was further felt that the explanation of Shri Arya that his knowledge of English language was very poor and he did not know the difference between ST and 'Pichidi Jati', did not appear to be acceptable. Case of Shri N.L. Meena [F.No.B-3/Atomic Energy-01/2004/SSW/RU-III] 3.1 The Commission noted that Shri N.L. Meena, Scientific Assistant, Heavy Water Plant, Rawat Bhata represented to this Commission in August, 2004 through General Secretary, Atomic Energy SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, Rawat Bhata regarding denial of promotion as Scientific Officer on the basis of his acquiring additional technical qualification of AMIE in June, 2003 with 54.40% marks on the ground that he had secured less than 60% of marks. It was also alleged that earlier the departmental candidates who acquired the said technical qualification were considered for promotion as Scientific Officer without any percentage bar till February, 2003. It was found that the Commission taken up the matter with the Department of Atomic Energy in November, 2004. The Commission was informed by the DAE that Shri Meena working in H.W.P.,

Rawat Bhata passed AMIE Electrical examination in September, 2003 through the Institution of Engineers (India), Kolkatta with 54.40% marks and that the norms for promotion on acquisition of additional qualification had since been revised w.e.f. 1.2.2003. It was stated that as Shri Meena had completed his AMIE with less than 60% marks only in September, 2003 he did not qualify for promotion on the basis of acquisition of additional qualification. The Department of Atomic Energy also referred to the DoPT's O.M. No.36011/8/84-Estt. (SCT) dated 29.5.1985 which provide that no relaxation is permitted in favour of SC/ST employees with regard to the educational qualification and if the percentage of marks are prescribed in the norms for a particular qualification, then all candidates including the candidates belonging to SC/ST communities are required to fulfill the eligibility conditions. A copy of this O.M. was also produced by DAE during the discussions. 3.2 A copy of the DAE's letter dated 18.10.2005 was supplied to the petitioner in June, 2006 and the petitioner Association again represented to the Commission. It, inter alia, referred to the DoPT's O.M. No.36011/8/84-Estt (SCT) dated 17 October, 1986 which was issued in supersession of the DoPT's O.M. dated 29.5.1985 (referred to above). The revised instructions, inter alia, provide that if adequate number of SC and ST candidates who satisfy the minimum standard are not available to fill the reserved vacancies, then SC/ST candidates may be selected to the extent of shortfall in vacancies by relaxing the minimum standard provided they are not considered unfit to hold the post. The Commission noted that the rejoinder of the petitioner Association had been sent for being examined in detail to the Department of Atomic Energy vide Commission's letter dated 21.12.2006. A copy of the reply of the Department of Atomic Energy dated 2.2.2007 to the rejoinder was communicated to the petitioner Association vide Commission's letter dated 19.3.2007. The DAE, inter alia, stated that DoPT's O.M. dated 17.10.1986 dealt with the relaxation for SC/ST in educational qualification and standard prescribed in the recruitment rules where the adequate number of SC/ST candidates was not available to fill the reserved vacancies by direct recruitment and that Shri Meena's case could not be considered in terms of sub-para (iv) of this O.M. as his case pertain to promotion and not to direct recruitment. The Commission found that the other points raised in the rejoinder were also examined by the DAE in detail in their reply dated 2.2.07 a copy of which has already been supplied to the petitioner Association. A copy of the DoPT's O.M. dated 17.10.1986 as submitted to the Commission by the petitioner Association along with its rejoinder was perused and found that these instructions were in relation to direct recruitment which cannot be made applicable in the matter of promotion and, therefore, it was felt that the reply of the DAE that Shri N.L. Meena cannot be given the benefit of the instructions of DoPT dated 17.10.1986 appeared to be in order. Representation of President, Atomic Energy SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, RRCAT, Indore regarding pending grievances of ST employees [F.No.R-17/Atomic Energy-2/2006/ST/SSW/RU-III] 4.1. The Commission noted that the Association had raised the following issues in its representation dated 20.2.2006:(i) (ii) (iii) Discrimination against SC/ST employees on their promotion in scientific and technical field. Violation of the Government order in the matter of reservation in departmental accommodation. Non-allotment of office and library for the Association.

(iv) (v) (vi)

Denial of holding talks with Association's office bearers. Removal of name of ST employees from the list of ST employees and showing them in the list of SC employees. Recognition of Association.

4.2 It was noted that the Commission had taken up the matter with the Department of Atomic Energy vide its letter dated 3.3.2006 and DAE had sent their item-wise detailed reply vide their letter dated 28 April, 2006 a copy of which was supplied to the petitioner Association vide Commission's letter dated Nil which was received by the President of Association on 13.12.06. The Commission observed that the DAE had examined the grievances mentioned at Sl.No.(ii), (iii), (v) and (vi) in terms of the guidelines on the subjects in question and the DAE's reply had already been sent to the petitioner Association. As regards the point at Sl.No.(iv), the DAE's officers were requested by JS, NCST during the discussions with them that they should ensure that there was a system of holding meetings with the SC/ST representatives of RRCAT at regular intervals so that the grievances of SC/ST officers were brought to the notice of the organization. JS, NCST also impressed upon the DAE's officers to ensure prompt remedial measures on the grievances brought to their notice by the Association. As regards the complaint in relation to discrimination against SC/ST employees in the matter of their promotion in scientific and technical field, the Commission noted that the Association had not brought out any specific case of discrimination. This fact was also brought to the notice of the petitioner Association by JS, NCST when they met him on 21.5.2007 after his meeting with the officers of DAE and the Association stated that they would submit the specific cases of discrimination to the Commission. JS, NCST assured them that those cases of discrimination will be taken up by the Commission with the Department of Atomic Energy as and when received by it from the Association. The petitioner Association has also stated that no action was being taken to fill up the backlog vacancies in various grades in direct recruitment as well as in promotion. It was, therefore, desired that the details of the backlog vacancies in each grade and the action taken/ being taken by the Department of Atomic Energy to fill up the backlog vacancies may be sent to the Commission immediately. _____________