RAJIV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was disposed off by a consent order on 12th January, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CM No. 4904/2007 for recall of, inter alia, the order dated 12.1.2007 whereby the petition was disposed of and for a decision of the petition on its merits. Another application was also moved by the petitioners being CM No. 10009/07 for certain directions, which will be adverted to later in this judgment. We have heard arguments on the aforesaid two applications and thereafter proceeded to hear the arguments of the parties in the Writ Petition itself, since we were inclined to allow petitioner's application being CM No. 4904/2007 and recall the orders dated 4.1.2007 and 12.1.2007 whereby the petition was disposed of on consent terms and to hear and decide the matter on its merits. We shall deal with the aforesaid applications in greater detail as we go along with this judgment.

(2.) The Petitioners challenge the order dated 28th June 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2025/1998 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed their aforesaid O.A. The Petitioners were seeking a direction to the Respondents to appoint them to the posts of Allopathic Pharmacists in the office of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Director (Medical) Delhi, ESIC, New Delhi on the basis of the Select list dated 28th June 1998.

(3.) According to the Petitioners, the Respondents placed a requisition with the Employment Exchange calling for names of duly qualified pharmacists registered with them for consideration for appointment as pharmacist through a selection process as per the recruitment rules. They state that 450 names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Respondents issued interview letters to more than 400 candidates. The selection Board was constituted which interviewed the candidates and on 24th June 1998, the Respondents displayed two lists of selected candidates, one consisting of 21 names of Allopathic pharmacists and the other of one Ayurvedic pharmacist. The Petitioners found their names in the select list of Allopathic pharmacists. However, they were not issued appointment letters. It is contended that since certain influential persons were interested in getting their favourite candidates selected to the posts in question, the Respondents had failed to operate the select list and were now setting up a false defence to deny the applicants the opportunity of being appointed. Consequently, the Petitioners filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal.