MAHESH KUMAR DAS AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with seven Ors. filed O.A. No. 482 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') praying for a direction to the opposite parties to give them appointment as unskilled labourers. By the impugned order dated 16.11.1999 at Annexure -1. The Tribunal declined to grant relief to them on the ground that the application has no merit. The validity of the said order is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the direction given by the Headquarters. Eastern Naval Command. Vishakapatnam the Deputy General Manager (Opp. party No. 4) requisitioned District Employment Exchange Officer. Koraput to sponsor names of eligible candidates for test/interview to fill up the posts of unskilled labourers. In response to the requisition, the Employment Exchange authority sponsored names of 919 candidates including the petitioners. Out of 919, only 502 candidates appeared for the recruitment test/interview. A board consisting of VtS. Parihar. D.G.M. as President; D. Muni CTO (A&E) as Member (SC/ST) and Sugunana AASO as Member was constituted for selecting candidates. The test/interview was held from 17.10.1994 to 29.10.1994. Against 23 clear vacancies, the Selection Board selected 37 candidates, of which. 15 were of general category. 7 S.C. and O.B.C. each and 8 from S.T. category. The Board recommended names of 23 candidates including the petitioners for appointment and kept reserved 14 candidates. Although the Board recommended their names, no appointment order was issued. On the contrary, the Employment Exchange Officer was again moved to sponsor names for filling up the posts of unskilled labourers. In the above back -drop, the petitioners moved the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid case for a direction to the contesting opposite parties to give them appointment as unskilled labourers.

(3.) Shri Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that no Government order of the circular with regard to constitution of the Selection Board was produced before the Tribunal in course of hearing nor any such order/circular was enclosed to the counter affidavit. Learned Counsel submitted that the selection was for appointment of unskilled labourers for which no academic excellence was necessary and. therefore absence of one member does not render the proceeding of the Board void. According to him there has been substantial compliance with regard to the constitution of the Selection Board and the Tribunal should not have invalidated the selection merely on surmises. In this connection he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Chandra v/s. Satyanarain Sinha : AIR 1972 SC 1812. He also criticised the procedure adopted by the Tribunal on the ground that it called for the records without notice to the petitioners and perused the same behind them.