Full Text
W.P.(C)4360/2015
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Ruchir Mishra,Adv.
Through None &
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Ruchir Mishra,Adv.
Through None
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
01.05.2015 CM No.7897-98/2015 in WPfCI No.4360/2015
CM No.7922-23/2015 in WPICI No.4378/2015 Exemption granted subjectto alljustexceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
CM No.7899/2015 in WP(CI No.4360/2015 CM No.7924/2015 in WP(0 No.4378/2015
By these applications the petitioner seeks permission to file
2015:DHC:10971-DB lengthy synopsis and list ofdates.
Asprayed,the application is allowed.
WP(a No.4360/2015 & CM 7896/2015 tstav^ WPfO No.4378/2015 &CM 7921/2015 Tstav)
Mr. Ruchir Mishra very fairly submits that against the same impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, PrincipalBench,New Delhithis Courthas dismissed the petition filed by Union ofIndia. The presentpetition is also againstthe same order and taking the same view that the present petition preferred by the
Union ofIndia is also being dismissed. The operative portion ofthe order already passed bythis Courtis reproduced hereunder:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and have given our conscious consideration to the arguments advanced by him.
In November,2007,an advertisement was issued by the petitioners inviting applications for filling up 45 vacancies of
Assistant Binder in the Directorate of Printing. The respondents herein had participated in the selection process but were not included in the paneTof selected candidates. There were some other candidates, namely, Puneet and Nafe Singh who had undergone apprenticeship from 07.10.1997 to
06.10.1999 and 07.10.1998 to 06.10.2000 respectively, and participated in the selection process but remain unsuccessftil.
These two applicants had approached the learned Tribunal by way ofOA N0.2318/2008,raising the plea that the candidates who had done apprenticeship much after them were selected in utter disregard to their preferential claim ofhaving completed the apprenticeship much earlier in comparison to the successful candidates.The claim ofthese applicants before the learned Tribunal was that the post being 'non-selection post', the question of'comparative merit' was not the criteria and that the criteria was that the ones who had completed apprenticeship earlier would be required to be treated as senior and hence would be entitled to be appointed. The learned
Tribunal did not agree with the plea raised by these applicants and dismissed the OA preferred bythem.
To challenge the order of the learned Tribunal, these applicants preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C)26/2009 and vide order dated 20th July, 2010, accepting the plea of these applicants,this Courtgavethefollowing directions:
"28. W3neednotwaitforany reportin view ofthe legalposition,as per our understanding above, which requires us to dispose ofthe instantpetition setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 and disposing ofthe instant writpetition as also OA No.2318/2008 by passing the directions to the 3rd respondent to redraw a list of empanelled candidates, not on the basis oftheir meritposition, but on the basis of their seniority reckoned from the dates they successfully obtained the apprenticeship certificates,subject to their suitability. We clarify that ifon the basis ofthe trade test and the interview which wasconducted,suitability can be culledoutde hors the merit, same should be done and if not the candidates be resubjected to a trade test with the focus of the test being to determine suitability andnotthe relative merit.
ORDER
29. We clarify that since appointments in the unreserved category andtheSTcategory are notin questionforthe reason onepetitioner appliedforthesolepostin theSCcategory andthe otherappliedfor apostin the OBCcategory, needfulwouldbe done only in respectof theSCand OBCcandidatesandnotthe candidates in the unreserved category andSTcategory.
30. Needful be done within aperiodof[4] monthsfrom today. Till the directions issuedare complied with, existing empanelled candidates in the category ofSCand DBSshallcontinue to work." Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners had redrawn the panel but since the redrawn panel was also based on the same criteria adopted by the petitioners,therefore,fresh challenge was laid by the respondents to the said panel and by impugned order dated 19.08.2014, the learned Tribunal gave fresh direction to the petitioners to cull out the suitability of the candidates on the basis of the trade test held in the selection process set in motion in November, 2007 with reference to seniority-cum-suitability of the candidates (apprentices). In our view the learned tribunal is right in holding that since the petitioners have again based the entire selection process on qualifying marks and standard merit of the respondents, ignoring the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.07.2010,they shall cull outthe suitability ofthe candidates on the basis ofthe trade test with reference to seniority-cum-suitability of the candidates (apprentices). Since the decision ofthis Court dated 20.07.2010 was not challenged or assailed by the petitioners, therefore, the same has attained finality and now the petitioners have to carry out the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in terms ofthe order dated 20.07.2010 and the directions given by the learned tribunal in the impugned order are mere reproduction of the directions given by this court in its earlier order dated 20.07.2010. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are accordingly directed to carry out the implementation of the direetion given by the learned Tribunal without causing any further delay in the matter." Accordingly these petitions are also dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBfflR,J