SHOJI N S Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P (CAT) is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A No.1068/2017. The brief facts are that the petitioner was the applicant before the Tribunal. He is a person suffering from hearing and speech impairment. The respondents had initially reported a vacancy in the post of Welder to the Employment Exchange by identifying the said post as one reserved for a person with disability. It is an admitted fact that this particular vacancy was not one in the specified roster point for providing reservation to persons with disability. Therefore through a renotification it was intimated to the Employment Exchange that the particular post was to be filled without applying any reservation. Exhibit R1 (b) is the letter dated 13-06-2012 through which the mistake was intimated to the Employment Officer and Ext.R1 (c) is the fresh requisition dated 18-07-2012. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that there was nothing wrong in the rectification of the mistake and that the petitioner therefore cannot have any grievance in the matter.

(2.) Sri. Vinay Kumar Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly contend before us the he does not dispute the fact that the first requisition identifying the post as one reserved for persons with disability was a bonafide mistake on the part of the respondents. Therefore he does not claim any legal right or equities on the basis of the mistaken requisition. He would however contend with reference to the office memorandum dated 29-12-2005 [No.3035/3/2005-Estt (Res)] issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension in the Government of India that persons with disability could be considered for appointment against unreserved vacancies also provided that the post is identified as one to which a person with disability could be appointed. In other words he would contend that even on the basis of the second requisition his name should have been sponsored and considered for appointment to the post of Welder in the unreserved category without giving him any benefit of reservation. Sri. T.V. Vinu, Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would however contend that on the basis of the second requisition the Employment Exchange had sponsored names and the post was filled up from the list sent by the Employment Exchange. He would also point out that the mistake, if any, committed by not sponsoring the name of the petitioner was one committed by the Employment Exchange and the respondents could not be faulted for having appointed a person from the list sponsored by Employment Exchange. He would also point out that the Employment Exchange is not a party these proceedings.

(3.) Having considered the contentions raised by both sides, we are of the opinion that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had a right to be considered against an unreserved vacancy also in the circumstances mentioned above is well founded. The respondents do not dispute that a person with hearing and speech disability could be appointed to the post of Welder. However we are not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner on account of the fact that neither the Employment Exchange nor the person appointed pursuant to Ext.R1 (c) requisition are parties to these proceedings. Further it is seen that Ext.R1 (c) requisition was issued as early as on 18-07-2012.