ARUN KUMAR RAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application the Petitioner -Arun Kumar Ray has sought to challenge, an Order Dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 626 of 1998 dismissing the Petitioner's application seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to issue an appointment order in favour to the Petitioner to the post of Field Assistant in the general category.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary detail as would be evident from the pleadings of this case, the Petitioner had applied in the year 1994 for being considered for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Gen.) in the Aviation Research Centre (Directorate General of Security), New Delhi. It appears that the Opposite Parties had initiated a selection process for 10 existing and 5 anticipated vacancies of Field Assistant (Gen.) and pursuant to the Petitioner's application all the applicants were interviewed from 23.5.1994 to 27.5.1994. A merit list was prepared for Seven General, 3 SC, 3 OBC and 1 ST candidates. From amongst the applicants the Petitioner's position in the merit list was at serial No. 9 and since there were seven vacancies in that category, the Petitioner was kept at serial No. 2 of the waiting list of the general category.

(3.) MR . S.N. Kar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised a contention that since the Petitioner was found meritorious and was put at serial No. 2 of the waiting list, pursuant to the interview held by the Opposite Parties in the year 1994, the Petitioner was entitled to be issued with a letter of appointment even if the vacancies have occurred thereafter. In other words Learned Counsel's contention is that from the impugned advertisement dated 28.6.1996 and 4.2.1998 it would be evident that the Opposite Parties required a huge number of Field Assistants and since the Petitioner had been found fit and had been placed at serial No. 2 of the waiting list, he should have been issued with a letter of appointment instead of seeking fresh applications for the said posts. In this regard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Jayamohan v. State of Keral and Anr. : [1997]3SCR1046 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. T.S. Sastry : (2004)1SCC136 . Learned Counsel further placed reliance upon the Judgment of this High Court in the case of Sri Rajanikanta Pattanayak and Ors. v. Sri R.S. Bedi and Anr. 2004 (I) OLR 447.