LAWS(UTN)-2011-1-18

DEVENDRA JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided On January 04, 2011
Devendra Joshi Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN terms of the order passed by this Court, notice of this writ petition was sent to respondent No.6 by registered post. The postal packet, as appears from the postal receipt issued, was properly addressed to respondent No.6. The postage payable in respect thereof was prepaid. The postal packet containing the notice has not been returned to this Court. Posting of the postal packet was affected on 2nd May 2009. In the circumstances, service of notice of this writ petition upon respondent No.6 should be deemed. Respondent No.6, however, has not chosen to contest this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was an employee of Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent employer”), which is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is under the administrative control of the Union of India through the Department of Science and Technology. It has, however, not been contended that the respondent employer is one of those institutions notified under the Central Administrative Act.

(3.) ON 10th August 2007, respondent employer published an advertisement. Thereby it was indicated that the respondent employer has vacancies in the posts of Engineer 'B'-Civil in the pay scale of `8,000-13,500. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement and upon being selected was offered an appointment on 1st November 2007. On 1st January 2008, petitioner joined on the post of Engineer 'B'-Civil. On 18th April 2008, another advertisement was published by the respondent employer indicating that it has still vacancy in one post of Engineer 'B'-Civil. This advertisement was responded by respondent No.6. On 2nd August 2008, respondent No.6 was interviewed and on the same date he was offered an appointment on the post of Engineer 'C'-Civil in the pay scale of `10,000-15,200. It appears that the pay of respondent No.6 was fixed at `11,950/-, i.e. after giving six advance increments. On the said date, i.e. on 2nd August 2008, respondent employer also published an advertisement indicating that a post of Engineer 'B'-Civil is still lying vacant. On 7th October 2008, respondent No.6 was made the reporting officer of the petitioner. On 8th October 2008, petitioner represented against grant of higher post and higher pay scale to respondent No.6. On 23rd December 2008, an explanation was sought from the petitioner for certain actions on his part. Petitioner was asked to give those explanations on or before 29th December 2008. On 29th December 2008, by a letter petitioner held out that the memorandum dated 23rd December 2008 asking the petitioner to give explanation, was received by him on 29th December 2008. By the said letter dated 29th December 2008, petitioner sought copies of certain documents. On 31st December 2008, impugned order was passed and thereby the services of the petitioner were brought to an end on the last date of his probation. There appears to be no dispute to the facts as indicated above.