UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANIL KUMAR BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Supply, Department of Defence Production, Board of India, New Delhi, as also by the General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur, and the Secretary Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata, whereby they have challenged the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1156 of 2003 filed by Anil Kumar Bajpai (the respondent No. 1). By the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the order dated 6.9.2002 whereby the claim of the respondent No. 1 for appointment on the post of Chargeman Grade-II/CT, as against the vacancies arising subsequent to the year of the recruitment examination, was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the case are that the respondent No. 1 after having completed the training was appointed on the post of Sewing Machine Mechanic (Semi-skilled) w.e.f. 1.4.1985 and was subsequently re-designated as Sewing Machine Mechanic w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 held the post of LDC w.e.f. 22.1.1998 in the Ordnance Factory, Kanpur. On 30.8.2000, a circular was circulated by the General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur thereby inviting applications to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (L.D.C.E.) for filling up three posts of Chargeman Grade-II (TECH/Clothing Technology), out of which one post was reserved for OBC. The respondent No. 1 appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2000 and by the letter of General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur was informed that he had passed the written examination and was required to attend the interview. The respondent No. 1 thereafter appeared in the interview and a list of four candidates in the order of merit was prepared wherein the respondent No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 4. Three candidates out of the list were promoted as Chargeman Grade-II/CT but the respondent No. 1 was left in the waiting list. Later, certain vacancies on the post of Chargeman Grade-II occurred after the L.D.C.E-2000 for which fresh applications were invited vide circular dated 29.9.2001. The respondent No. 1 applied for participating in the L.D.C.E-2001 but just before the actual date of examination, the eligibility criteria was changed by circular dated 21.12.2001. As a consequence, the respondent No. 1 was not allowed to appear in the examination of L.D.C.E.-2001. However, by relying on a circular dated 8.2.1982, the respondent No. 1 filed a representation claiming that he should be given appointment on the basis of his selection in the L.D.C.E. 2000. He claimed that as per the circular dated 8.2.1982 where the selected candidates are awaiting appointment, recruitment should either be postponed till all the selected candidates are accommodated or alternatively intake for the next recruitment should be reduced by the number of candidates already awaiting appointment, so that the candidates awaiting appointment be given appointment first before starting appointments from a fresh list from a subsequent recruitment or examination. This representation of the respondent No. 1 was rejected by the order dated 6.9.2002 which reads as under:

(3.) Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the respondent No. 1 filed O.A. No. 1156 of 2003 seeking the following reliefs: