AJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks directions for quashing of an Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1995 (issued by the Central Government) and the orders made by the respondents cancelling his appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant in Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Commandant in ITBP and the appointment letter in that regard was issued on 16.12.2009. He had to join his duties by 13.1.2010. The time for joining duties was extended - at his request; the respondents directed that he should report for duties by 13.2.2010 by their letter dated 18.1.2010. The petitioner, thereafter, sought further extension of time by an application dated 16.2.2010 and requested that he be allowed to join the next batch for training. It is asserted that this request was in accordance with OM dated 28.8.1997 governing the employer organization. The respondents extended the time and stated, by their letter dated 26.3.2010, that the petitioner had to join by 12.4.2010. Before that date, on 8.4.2010, the petitioner yet again sought for further extension this time for a period of one year since his mother was critically ill. His letter dated 8.4.2010 also enclosed copies of his mother's medical papers. The respondents partly accepted this request and extended the time to join the duties till 15.6.2010. The petitioner was unable to join duties. In this background, on 1.7.2010, the respondents issued a letter/order intimating that his candidature and consequently the offer of appointment stood cancelled. The petitioner states that he fell ill and was hospitalized on 17.7.2010 and after recovery from the illness, he applied on 15.9.2010, requesting that he should be allowed to join the duties. By letter dated 18.10.2010, the respondents rejected the request.

(3.) The petitioner repeatedly and unavailingly, represented to the respondents for revival of his appointment offer. Ultimately, on 8.2.2011, his request was finally rejected. The said letter/communication relied upon an OM dated 9.8.1995 and also stated that there was no provision for reconsideration of his case which had been rejected, and consequently led to the lapse of his offer of appointment. The petitioner had challenged the final rejection of his request through the order dated 8.2.2011 in an earlier proceedings in WP (C) 4208/2012. In those proceedings, the respondents had relied upon the OM of 9.8.1995. The petitioner sought and was granted liberty by an order dated 26.7.2012 to withdraw that writ petition. He now challenges the cancellation of his appointment as well as the legality of the OM of 9.8.1995. The said OM states as follows: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_451_LAWS(DLH)1_2013(1).html</FRM>