N K PAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 11th September, 2000, dismissing on 572/ 2000, filed by the Tribunal. The petitioner before the tribunal challenged the order of termination issued by respondent No. 2 dated 16 -3 -2000.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement notice dated 27 -7 -1996 inviting applications for three posts of Computer Operators, Grade -II. The petitioner figured at Serial No. 3 of the selection panel and was appointed by an Order dated 29 -1 -1998 passed by respondent No. 2. He joined against this post and on satisfactory completion of his probation was confirmed by order dated 1 -2 -1999 passed by respondent No. 2. However, later he was put on show cause notice dated 11 -1 -2000 by respondent No. 2 stating that respondent No. 1 raised objections to his appointment which according to the respondent No. 1 was bad in law and in contravention of CSIR instructions. He replied to this notice, but his services were ordered to be terminated by order dated 16 -3 -2000. He challenged this in O. A. 572/ 2000 which was dismissed by impugned order dated 11 -9 -2000 by Tribunal holding that since appointment was made erroneously against a non -existing post it was rightly set aside. The petitioner has now filed this petition assailing the Tribunal's order.

(3.) IN our view the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The petitioner had undergone the comprehensive departmental selection procedure. He had been fully found fit and it is not in dispute that he has carried out his duties satisfactorily since his appointment on 29th January 1998. In fact it is not in dispute that the petitioner had successfully completed his probation and was confirmed by an Order dated 1st February1999, passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also brought on record the fact that he is doing a highly specialized job of IMPACT System (Integrated Management of Project and Accounting). Furthermore right since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been working on the post of Computer Operator and due to the various interim orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal and this Court has continued to do so since 29th January, 1998 up to date. The petitioner will obviously now be handicapped by seeking a fresh employment at this stage of his career. The respondent's purported mistake has led to the present situation and the petitioner cannot be blamed for the error, if any, committed by the respondents. In fact the respondents who have appointed the petitioner after a proper selection procedure are now estopped from contending to the contrary as the petitioner due to the long passage of time cannot now be asked to seek fresh employment.