S C SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners of the two writ petitions have challenged the order dated 22-02-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 2294/2002 filed by one Mrs. Mukesh Lata Gautam, who is respondent no. 5 in the writ petition of Shri S.C.Sharma and is respondent no. 1 in the writ petition of the Union Public Service Commission, whereby the selection and appointment of the petitioner Shri S.C.Sharma to the post of Senior Research Officer(Research Division) in the Central Institute of Research Training and Employment(CIRTES), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, has been quashed. Since both these petitions seek to challenge the same order of the tribunal and the points involved therein for the determination of this Court are also common and were heard together we propose to decide the same by this common judgment and for the sake of convenience we shall be referring to the parties as arraigned in the Writ Petition No.7803 of 2005 filed by Sh. S.C. Sharma whose appointment stands quashed at the instance of one Ms. Mukesh Lata Gautam, who is respondent no. 5 in his writ petition.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of the application before the tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the respondent no. 5 are that the post of Senior Research Officer(SRO) in Research Division in CIRTES had been advertised in April, 2001 for being filled up by way of direct recruitment. However, even the already employed Government servants, like the petitioner and respondent no. 5 could also apply. The petitioner and respondent no. 5, besides others, applied for the said post. The petitioner at that time was employed as Sub-Regional Employment Officer in the Coaching cum Guidance Centre for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes under the Directorate General of Employment and Training(DGEandT), Ministry of Labour. Earlier to that he was working in CIRTES as Senior Technical Assistant(STA). Respondent no. 5 was already employed at that time in CIRTES as a Research Officer. The petitioner was selected in the interview conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on 17-10-2001 and was appointed w.e.f. 3-10-2002 after he resigned from his post of SREO. The respondent no. 5, who claims to have been placed at number 2 position in the select list, felt that, in fact, she should have been appointed because the petitioner S.C.Sharma was not even eligible for the post in question and also for the reason that his ACR Dossiers were not forwarded to the UPSC since in December, 1994 he had been inflicted a major penalty of stoppage of one increment for some misconduct and that material fact had been kept away from the Selection Board of the UPSC. So, she filed an application before the tribunal in October , 2003 for quashing the appointment of Mr. S.C.Sharma. She challenged the selection of the present petitioner and also put forth her claim for appointment as Senior Research Officer. In her application she had claimed that, in fact, she along with the present petitioner had applied for the post of Senior Research Officer in the Research Division as well as for the same post in the CSC Division of the CIRTES which post had also been advertised in the year 2001 although the vacancies for these posts in both the Divisions had accrued many years ago. She had also claimed that although steps should have been taken for filling up these two posts immediately on their becoming available but the Government did not do that and kept both the posts vacant. For the posts of SRO in the CSC Division one Shri L.V.Reddy was selected while the petitioner Shri S.C.Sharma was selected by the UPSC for the post of SRO in the Research Division of CIRTES. The respondent no. 5 claimed that in the select panel for the post in the CSC Division her name was at serial no. 2 and Shri S.C.Sharma did not find any place in the select panel for that post for which he was interviewed on 13-09-2001. However, he was selected for the other post in the Research Division for which he was interviewed on 17-10- 2001. It was her contention that the petitioner who could not get selected in the interview held on 13-09-2001 for the same post in another Division could not have suddenly been found fit for selection for the post in question after one month. The respondent no. 5 had also claimed in her application that she could also be promoted to the post in question from promotion quota retrospectively from 01-01-97 from which date she had, in fact, been officiating on that post on ad hoc basis.

(3.) The O.A. was contested by the respondents. Respondents no. 1 to 3 while admitting that the petitioner herein was awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a year claimed that the period of one year had already expired on 30th November, 1995 and, therefore, the petitioner S.C.Sharma was free from vigilance angle after that date for any future promotion. It was also claimed that the respondent no. 5 herein had made a representation to the UPSC against the selection of the petitioner and after examining the matter the UPSC informed that no action was to be taken on her representation as she had already been provided the chance of consideration by the Selection Board and further requested the department to proceed further for the appointment of Shri S.C.Sharma.