RAJNIKANT PATTANAYAK Vs. R S BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt application has been filed by the writ petitioners in O.J.C. No. 1495 of 1999 and Misc. Case No. 11947 of 2001.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case is that the petitioners initially filed O.A. No. 30 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench praying for regularisation in Class-Ill and IV posts under the Aviation Research Centre (in short 'A.R.C'), Charbatia. The Tribunal by order dated 15/11/1993 directed the opposite parties to prepare a seniority list of the petitioners and other casual labourers working under the A.R.C. and consider their case whenever the vacancies occur and to appoint persons from the said list found suitable. The petitioners having not been absorbed by the A.R.C., filed O.A. No. 349 of 1995 praying for a mandamus to implement the order dated 15/11/1999 passed in O.A. No. 30 of 1992. The opposite parties pleaded that the petitioners had been called for interview for the post of Air Craft Assistants and two of them have been selected out of the five petitioners who had requisite qualification for the said post. The Original Application was, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners had challenged the said order of the Tribunal in O.J.C. No. 1495 of 1999. This Court, by order dated 21/11/2000, a copy of which is Annexure-1 on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and materials on record, allowed the writ petition, directing the opposite parties 3 and 4 to consider the application of the petitioners, if they are otherwise found suitable giving due weightage to their experience while making selection against the post and absorb them and other casual labourers in the organisation. In Misc Case No. 11947 of 2001, by order dated 8/10/2001, on the allegation of the petitioners that the opposite parties are not considering their cases in terms of order dated 21/11/2000 on the ground that no time limit has been indicated, this Court called upon the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 to comply with the direction by the end of November, 2001. In spite of the order, the opposite parties having allegedly not considered the case of the petitioners, they have moved this Court for dealing with the opposite parties, more particularly, opposite parties 3 and 4 for non-compliance of the order/direction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

(3.) The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed their affidavits denying the allegations made. It is submitted that the opposite parties have strictly complied with the order. The applications of the petitioners for the posts they have applied for were sincerely considered for assessing their suitability and due weightage for the experience they gained while working as ex-casual labourers was duly given by adding one grace mark for each six months experience they had gained as casual labourers in Car Project. But the petitioners could not qualify the test. According to the opposite parties, the pre-condition for the post of Aircraft Assistant was that one has to qualify the physical efficiency test prior to interview. Only one out of the petitioners qualified for the same and the others failed in the physical efficiency test and, therefore, could not be selected. The main ground on which the petitioners are said to be disqualified is in physical efficiency test. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2, the Dy. Director (A), Aviation Research Centre, Head Quarter, New Delhi, it is stated that it is open for the petitioners to apply for different posts as and when the Department issues an advertisement against the available vacancy. But unfortunately, they are making attempts to obstruct the administrative process of appointment of already selected candidates by way of filing contempt application. However, it is stated that the petitioners are free to submit their applications for selection process in different trades in the Department, if they meet necessary pre-requisites as per the Recruitment Rules. An additional affidavit has been filed on October 20, 2003 by the Dy. Director (A), ARC, HQ, New Delhi in compliance with the order dated August 6, 2003. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners could be given weightage given respect of merit secured in the interview, there can be no compromise on the minimum physical standards required for the post. Thus, out of 20 ex-casual labourers who attended to the physical efficiency test for the post, only two candidates had qualified in the said test and had accordingly been interviewed by the Selection Board, one of them has been selected. In paragraph-5 of the affidavit, it has been submitted that during the intervening period, since the posts advertised by the Department had remained vacant for a period of more than one year, all these posts had fallen under the category of deemed abolition by virtue of orders passed by Government of India, Ministry of Finance. In spite of concerted efforts by the Department, the posts could not be revived so far. However, revival of these posts as well as a number of other posts in the Department are still pending with the Government and the matter is still under correspondence with the Ministry of Finance and thus, no appointment order could be issued to any of the candidates selected in the aforesaid selections. According to the deponent, this matter was not properly projected before the Court while passing the order dated 21/11/2001. In paragraph-9 of the affidavit, it has been stated that during the year 2001, one post of Waiter was notified on 1/11/2001 and another single post of Anti Malaria Mazdoor was also notified on March 8, 2002. Butut none of the casual labourers/petitioners, submitted any application in response to this notification and, therefore, none of these petitioners/casual labourers could be considered for appointment against these posts.