MAHESHCHAND BOOPSINGH Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste, notified in the State of Uttarpradesh. The name of the petitioner was forwarded to Respondent No.1 by the Association and Organisation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes recognised by respondent No.2 pursuant to a request made by Respondent No.1. Subsequent to that, Respondent No.1 called the petitioner for interview. Alongwith the petitioner, it appears that, there were nine other candidates. In the selection done, the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1. The post for which the interviews were held, was the post of Card Punch Operator Grade-III. Respondent No.1 is a Public Sector Establishment established under the statute and is managed and controlled by the Union of India. The Government of India had issued instructions to all the Central Government Departments and Public Sector Enterprises to launch a special recruitment drive to fill in all the backlog vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes latest by 30th September, 1992. Pursuant to these directives, requisitions were sent by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to the local employment exchange as also the employment exchanges of Panvel and Collector, Raigadh. The requisition also shows that notice was forwarded to voluntary organisations of Scheduled Castes as per Government notification. This was pursuant to a letter dated 30.6.1992 of Respondent No.1. The Regional Employment Exchange had been called upon to forward the names of the candidates fulfilling the necessary qualifications on or before 15.7.1992. As the Regional Employment Exchange Officers of Mumbai or Panvel did not respond to the said notification, the Respondents had considered the names received from Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar Welfare Association and Akhil Bharat Anusuchit Jati Parishad, both of whom had been sent the communication of 30.6.1992. The District Collector, Raigadh, District.Alibag also did not forward any name. Considering the qualifications prescribed and in terms of the O.N.G.C.(R & P) Regulations 1980, the selection board was constituted and names were empanelled. In the affidavit of Bipin Prakash, Joint Manager (P & A) R & P Section, ONGC, it is set out that the petitioner was at the top of the select list. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was selected, no appointment letter was issued in August, 1992. The petitioner has averred that he learnt, that there was pressure on the Respondents from the Unions and local politicians not to make the appointment in accordance with the selection already completed. The petitioner was awaiting his appointment. Inspite of his repeated enquiries, the petitioner received no categorical answer from the Respondents. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner learnt that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have once again sought nominations from the local Employment Exchange by sending them reminders in pursuance of the earlier requisition sent in the month of June, 1992, though, the selection procedure had been duly, legally and validly completed in August, 1992. The petitioner s case is that he learnt in December, 1992 that local Employment Exchange nominated ten candidates who were called for selection. From those candidates who were called for interview, Respondent No.4 was selected. It is the case of the petitioner that though he had already been selected yet was not appointed. This action of the Respondents was arbitrary and as Respondent No.4 had been selected in an arbitrary manner and on account of undue pressure from the Unions and local politicians, he has preferred this Petition.

(2.) A learned Bench of this Court was pleased to admit the Petition and granted interim relief staying the appointment of Respondent No.4. The petitioner thereafter took out a Motion for a direction that he should be appointed against the vacancy. A learned Bench of this Court by order dated 28.1.1994, was pleased to order Respondent No.1 to fill-up the vacancy within two weeks by appointing the petitioner. Needless to say that the appointment was subject to result of the Petition. Respondent No.4 thereafter took out motion No.243 of 1994 for vacating the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner. The learned Bench of this Court by its order dated 4th March, 1994 noted that though Respondent No.4 had been served for the hearing when the interim relief for appointment of petitioner was being considered yet chose not to appear, in these circumstances, the Respondent No.4 could not make any grievance against the interim order, and accordingly rejected the motion. Respondent No.4 did not appeal against the order.

(3.) Pursuant to the order issued by this Court on 28.1.1994, the petitioner came to be appointed by letter of appointment dated 11.2.1994. The petitioner since then has been working and has been promoted to the post of Card Punch Operator Grade-II on 1.1.2001. He was initially on probation in the said promotional post and has been declared as having successfully completed the said period of probation.