HAKIM SUED AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition challenge is to the order dated 2/04/1997,passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,dismissing O.A. No. 2520/96 filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass. On 1/01/1987, petitioner was appointed on monthly wage basis in CGHS and by an orderdated 28/06/1987, he was appointed as Medical Officer (Unani) on the strengthof CGHS, Delhi, on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000. Pursuant to theadvertisement No. 1 dated 13/01/1996, inviting applications for the post ofMedical Officer (Unani) in CGHS, the petitioner applied for that post by makingapplication dated 23/01/1996which was duly acknowledged in the respondent'soffice vide receipt No. 448161 dated 23/01/1996. Subsequently, petitioner wasallotted roll No. 326 vide letter dated 12/04/1996 by the respondent. It is allegedthat on 3/12/1996 when the petitioner visited the office of the respondentto enquire about the recruitment to the post of Medical Officer (Unani) pursuant tothe aforesaid advertisement No. 1, he was orally informed that interviews are to beconducted on 9/12/1996 and call letters have already been despatched toshort-listed candidates. Petitioner was not called for interview. Aggrieved by thearbitrary action of the respondent, the petitioner filed O.A. on 5/12/1996 outof which the present petition arises. By way of interim direction respondent wasordered to interview the petitioner but his result was directed to be kept in a sealedcover. It was stated that the petitioner has a right to be considered to the post ofMedical Officer (Unani). Relief claimed by the petitioner was that the respondentbe directed to declare the outcome of the interview held on 9/12/1996 andin case the petitioner is selected he may be issued offer of appointment to theaforesaid post.

(3.) In the reply it is not denied that the petitioner appled in response to therespondent's advertisement for three posts of Medical Officer (Unani) and he wasallotted roll No. 326, as alleged. It is further not denied that the petitioner fulfilledall the essential and minimum qualificationsprescribed under recruitment rules forappointment to the said post bydirect recruitment. However, it is alleged that 445applications were received for the post. The petitioner was not called for interviewas he did not meet the short-listing criteria adopted by the respondent for callinggeneral candidates for interview. As per the interim order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6/12/1996, the petitioner was interviewed provisionallyon 9/12/1996. It is stated that the respondent's right to short-list thecandidates for interview has been upheld in many judgments passed by theTribunal /Courts.