VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners challenge the orders of the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09 -03 -2014 in OA Nos. 1909/2012, 1554/2012, 1848/2012, 2272/2012, 579/2013 and order dated 23 -05 -2014 in OA No. 1621/2013. Their applications questioning the orders of the respondent -Union of India represented through the Government of India Press (hereafter called "UOI") were dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Government of India Press advertised vacancies in various posts -(Group B, Group C and Group D). These included the posts of Assistant Binders, Carpenters, Assistant Plate Maker, Machine Attendant Offset; Machine Assistant, besides Group D (Laborers) posts. The vacancies were advertised on different dates, in relation to availability of vacancies in the different centers (Govt. Press Maya Puri, Nilokheri, Aligarh and Mainpuri). These advertisements were issued -as noticed earlier, on different dates. After screening the responses, the recruitment process was undertaken. In the case of Group C posts, the selection process included trade tests besides interview; in the case of Group D posts, it included interviews. Different selection committees were constituted by the Central Government in respect of the different units/Presses. In the case of individual Presses too, depending upon the number of eligible applicants who had to be examined or considered, two or more selection panels were constituted. All those whose names figured in the select list were informed about their selection and were asked to complete formalities such as medical test, police verification, etc. On the basis of their merit in the select list, some applicants were issued appointment letters and allowed to join. A complaint was received by the Central Government, thereafter, alleging large scale irregularities in the recruitment process. On 03.04.2008, decision was taken at the Ministry level to stall the process of acceptance of joining reports by the selected candidates, till the investigation was complete.

(3.) BEFORE this Court, the Central Government had argued that an inquiry into the matter had been ordered which had been completed. A report was submitted by the inquiring authority, namely, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry of Urban Development. The order dated 13.12.2010 was shown to the CAT, which was issued following the report of the inquiry. This court, in its order disposing of the writ petitions noticed and directed as follows: