SATYAWAN Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for recruitment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Chandigarh Police against the vacancies of 2007 selection that was finalized on 13.6.2011 and vacancy of ESM quota being available due to non -issuance of offer of appointment and cancellation of candidature of candidate in the main list and the applicant being next in order of merit, the only candidate in the waiting list, and offer the applicant appointment as an ASI in the Chandigarh Police from the date his colleagues have been appointed as such from the due date with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay and allowances and other attendant benefits with interest @18% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual day of payment.

(2.) BACKGROUND of the matter is that the applicant belongs to Ex -serviceman category and has been working as Constable in Union Territory Police since 2008. The Chandigarh Administration issued an advertisement dated 18.2.2007 in the newspapers inviting applications to fill 20 temporary posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs. 4550 -7220. Two of these posts were reserved for Ex -serviceman. The selection was finalized in 2011 and the applicants name appeared at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list of Ex -serviceman category (Annexure A -2). Selected candidates were issued appointment letters on 25.9.2012. Of two ESM candidates who were included in the select list only Sh. Krishan Dev Singh, whose name was at Sr. No. 1 was offered appointment and he joined as such. The other candidate Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, whose name was at Sr. No. 2 did not report for medical test and was not issued offer of appointment. Consequently, the applicant submitted a representation to Respondent No. 2 on 17.7.2013 (Annexure A -4) requesting that since candidate at Sr. No. 1 in the category of the applicant had already joined and was undergoing training and candidate at Sr. No. 2 had not turned up for verification of the documents therefore he may be issued offer of appointment. Since he did not get a positive response in the matter hence he filed O.A. No. 060/00336/2014 before this Tribunal on 21.1.2014. However, since there were some factual mistakes in the O.A. the same was withdrawn on 22.4.2014 with liberty to file afresh. The applicant then filed O.A. No. 060/00354/2014 on 23.4.2014 and later filed M.A. No. 060/01061/2014 seeking amendment of this O.A.

(3.) ARGUMENTS advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard when learned counsel for the applicant reiterated facts and grounds taken in the O.A. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgments dated 25.3.2008 in CWP No. 16007 -CAT of 2007 titled as Satinder Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others and dated 23.4.2014 in CWP No. 21656 of 2013 titled U.T. Chandigarh & others v. Sundari and others.