UNION OF INDIA Vs. PADURANG MAHADEV AMATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in both the petitions. Heard forthwith. As the issue involved in these petitions are common, they are being disposed off by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners herein had invited applications for the post of Mazdoor which included (General 007 (including 02 ex-servicemen) , 04 OBCs (including 1 Ex-serviceman) , 2 SC, and 1 ST and 12 Chowkidars. The recruitment notice was issued on 29-8-2000. The respondents hereinafter following the prescribed selection process, completed the same on 18-12-2000. Before the offer of appointment could be issued, the petitioners were informed by the Ministry of defence that there was a ban on selection, imposed by the Department of personnel on 5-8-1999. As such, no actual orders of appointments were issued to the respondents. After the ban was lifted, another recruitment notice was issued on 11-7-2003, inviting application for post of 10 Mazdoors. Aggrieved by this notice, the respondents filed Original Application before the Central administrative Tribunal. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 2756 of 2004 had filed O. A. No. 663 of 2003 and respondent in Writ Petition No. 2813 of 2005 had filed on OA No. 457 of 2004. It was the case of the respondents before the learned Tribunal that once the selection was made and the panel prepared, persons whose names were on the panel had to be first given appointment and only after the list of names on the panel was exhausted, was it open to the petitioners to invite applications for fresh recruitment. Respondents relied on the dopt Office Memo 82/1982. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that there was a ban in force and as such the entire action of recruitment was without authority and therefore, ab-initio void. It was also pointed out that even if some action had been taken, considering that the selection process itself was void, the respondents could claim no legal right.

(3.) The learned Tribunal found that the selection process was undertaken as a result of recruitment notice issued on 28th August, 2000. The advertisement was issued by the competent authority and the selection process has been done by a duly constituted Selection Committee, authorised by the Appointing authority. The appointments could not be made, only because it was later discovered that at the time when the recruitment was undertaken, there was a ban on recruitment, imposed by the Department of Personnel (DOPT). The Tribunal then posed to itself the main question, as to whether the selection which was done in the year 2000 would be alive at the time of recruitment notice dated 11-7-2003, by which fresh recruitment process was commenced. The learned tribunal then quoted from Office Memo (OM) dated 8-2-1982. It also noted the instructions relating to the candidates who had been selected. The Tribunal, also considered the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents, that once an appointment order had been issued to one Mr. Senapati, others similarly selected had to be issued letter of appointment. This was however, contested by the respondents. The learned Tribunal, however, recorded a finding that Regular selection process had been undertaken and the candidates were selected and it was not the fault of the respondents, that the recruitment process was undertaken without knowing the DOPT's ban, and that some of the selected candidates who were eligible, if they apply afresh for the post, because of the age, they would not be considered. The Tribunal under these circumstances thought, that in all fairness that selection made as a result of recruitment notice issued on 29-8-2003, be not scrapped and be made operative for future vacancy, arising in the said department. In O. A. No. 457 of 2004, which was disposed on 6th June, 2005 certain judgments have also been relied upon. The directions given in O. A. No. 457 of 2004 was that if the applicant finds place in the list of selected candidates, the applicant be appointed in existing future vacancy and should be given seniority on the basis of actual date of appointment. The Tribunal also noted that o. A. No. 663 of 2003 had been allowed on 5-11-2003.