UNION OF INDIA Vs. ADHIKRAO RAMCHANDRA JAGDALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and directions for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and order dated 27.2.2004 and 22.11.2004 passed in O.A. No. 367 of 2003 and Misc. Petition No. 607 of 2004 in O.A. No. 367 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) Sometime in September, 1999 respondent no. 2 Bhabha Atomic Research Centre sent a requisition to the local Employment Exchange seeking the list of eligible persons for filling up the posts of drivers and also issued a circular to its various offices throughout India for filling up the posts from departmental candidates. Various criteria's were prescribed for the said posts. Accordingly, the respondents submitted their applications for the posts of drivers. The petitioners were also asked to fill in the other forms. It is the case of the petitioners that reports were received by the management that some corrupt practices had taken place during the process and several lapses were also noticed in the recruitment procedure which was followed while filling up the said posts. A decision was therefore taken to scrap the entire select panel. Thereafter, in February 2001 recruitment norms for the posts of drivers were revised with the approval of respondent no. 2, Director of BARC. Thereafter, fresh advertisements were issued inviting applications for the posts of drivers.

(3.) In June, 2002 a representation was made by the respondents requesting the authorities to offer them appointments for the posts of drivers. Since the said representation was not decided the four respondents filed O.A. No. 367 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.A. and disposed of the said O.A. by its Judgment and order dated 27.2.2004. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it felt that the appointment could not be denied to the applicants therein since they crossed the maximum age of 30 years in view of the new recruitment rules. A direction was given therefore to adjust the applicants as against future vacancies of drivers. A direction was also given by the Tribunal that before appointing the said applicants, the respondents were at liberty to examine whether they fulfill all the eligibility criteria according to the rules which existed at the time of selection. It was contended by the respondents that in view of the new rules of recruitment, it was necessary to have driving licence which was one of the eligibility criteria. The Tribunal therefore directed that if the respondents would not attain the said qualification within a period of two years their services should be confirmed only after they acquired the said qualification. A direction was also given that the said respondents would be given seniority from the date of their appointments against future vacancies and those existing at present. Permission was also granted to the petitioners to take trade test again. It was also clarified that the respondents herein were supposed to fulfil all other requirements. A direction was also given to complete the said process within a period of six months.