UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDRABHAN DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Union of India and another against Shri Chandrabhan Dixit for quashing of the judgment and order dated 29.3.2011 passed in Original Application No.371 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has held that they are firmly of the view that completion of training with substitute batch can be no reason for denying the legitimate seniority of the respondent no.1. The Union of India, therefore, have been directed to allow deemed seniority to Chandrabhan at the bottom of 35th batch and allow him all consequential benefits as per rules within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

(2.) While passing the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the production of mark sheet was not within the power of the respondent Chandrabhan as the same was not timely supplied by the authorities to him. Immediately after it was made available, it was produced before the petitioners and there were number of litigations which went in favour of the respondent no.1 and hence if the respondent no.1 received the mark sheet with delay, it is not the fault of the respondent no.1.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 applied for selection as Trade Apprentice Certificate in pursuance of the advertisement published by the Ordinance Factory Board. Subsequently, the interview of non-ITI and ITI candidates for 35th batch was held between 26.9.1994 to 6.10.1994 and the respondent no.1 was permitted to participate. Thereafter, 35 candidates including the respondent Chandrabhan were declared successful and the respondent no.1 was required to produce the mark sheet by 10.11.1994 vide letter dated 28.10.1994. Respondent no.1 was intimated that in case of failure to produce the mark sheet, his candidature will be rejected. However, since the mark sheet was not supplied by the authorities, the respondent no.1 could not produce the same within the time as desired, hence his candidature was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21071 of 1995 before this Court which was disposed of permitting the respondent no.1 to undergo Trade apprentice training and the petitioners were directed to admit him as ex-ITI candidate in the next batch that may be available after 35th batch. In pursuance of the said direction the respondent no.1 has undergone apprenticeship training as ex-ITI candidate in 45th batch from October, 2004. Again, the respondent no.1 filed Original Application No.144 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad with the prayer for directing the petitioners to issue apprenticeship training certificate for 35th batch in which he was initially selected and to provide him job accordingly.