NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI Vs. AFSHAN KHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an interlocutory order dated 2nd February, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in (i) O.A. No. 200/00076/2016, (ii) O.A. No. 200/00079/2016 (iii) O.A. No. 200/00080/2016, (iv) O.A. No. 200/00081/2016, (v) O.A. No. 200/00151/2016, this petition has been filed invoking the Courts extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) By the interlocutory order passed, learned Tribunal having prima facie found, withdrawal of appointment granted to the respondents, in the manner done to be unsustainable and in violation to the principles of natural justice, has stayed the orders/action impugned, hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is seen from the record that the Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Bhopal and Lucknow conducted certain selection process for appointment to various posts of miscellaneous category teachers, after the process of selection was over, the respondents were appointed in the year 2013. Complaints were received with regard to the selection process, matter was enquired into and findings were recorded in the enquiry with regard to certain irregularities and illegalities, therefore, based on the same, matter was handed over for further investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and it seems that on advice received from the C.B.I, and on the basis of the enquiry report, the impugned action for withdrawal of appointment was undertaken. Be that as it may, at this stage, we are not required to go into various aspects of the matter on merit exercising our limited jurisdiction in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are only required to assess as to whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal at this stage granting interim protection to the respondents warrant consideration, whether the impugned order is perverse or illegal to such an extent that on the face of it, it is seen to be unsustainable. For doing so, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we find that after analyzing the entire material that came on record, certain findings have been recorded by the Tribunal which are contained in para 6 and 7 of the impugned order and for the sake of convenience, we reproduce the same.

(3.) The aforesaid findings clearly indicates that the entire selection process was conducted in two phases. A written examination was conducted by the Authorities of Punjab University carrying 140 marks and an interview by the Regional Office at Bhopal carrying 60 marks. It is the finding recorded by the Tribunal that according to the petitioners" own saying, there is no illegality in the written examination conducted, the illegality only pertains to the interview conducted for which 60 marks were reserved. That a -part, the enquiry report submitted by the petitioners themselves before the Tribunal indicates that the Enquiry Committee found irregularity only with regard to 15 candidates out of the total No. of 658 candidates who were called for interview. The enquiry report further indicates that only 3 candidates out of these 15 were selected, it is after evaluating this aspect of the matter that the Tribunal found that at this stage, interim protection should be granted. This according to us, is a reasonable finding based on due appreciation of the material available on record, cannot be termed as erroneous, perverse or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Nothing is shown to us or demonstrated before us to say that this finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal for arriving at a prima facie conclusion is erroneous. That being so, it is not a fit case where exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. At this stage, this Court is not required to go into all the aspect of the matter on merit as al these questions are sub -judice before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, having considered various aspect of the matter including the question of breach of natural justice while granting interim protection to the large number of respondents, has not committed any error, so grave in nature, that the same warrants re -consideration at this stage.