UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY Vs. MONIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 22.5.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "CAT"), whereby the order dated 28.1.2015 (Annexure A-11) rejecting candidature of applicant-respondent No.1, challenged at the behest of respondent No.1, had been quashed.

(2.) Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that on 25.2.2014, a notification was issued for filling up the posts of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants, Postal Assistants (Saving Bank Control Organisation)/Postal Assistant (Return Letter Offices/Postal Assistants (Mail Motor Services) and Postal Assistants (Circle and Regional Offices) for the year 2013-14. Respondent No.1 applied for the said post by filling OMR under OBC category. She appeared for aptitude test held on 27.4.2014 and type/computer test on 12.7.2014/14.7.2014 and vide letter dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure A-5) was provisionally selected as Postal Assistant (Post Offices) subject to completion of formalities. In pursuance to the aforementioned letter, respondent No.1 appeared and produced the original certificates. On scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the OBC certificate was issued on 29.10.2014, i.e., after the last date for receipt of application form.

(3.) It was next contended that respondent No.1 approached this Court for an appropriate direction to the respondents to accept the necessary documents by filing CWP No.23441 of 2014. The aforementioned writ petition, vide order dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure A-7), was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, therein, to make a detailed representation to the competent authority, i.e., Chief Post Master General, Haryana. In pursuance to the direction, a representation dated 22.11.2014 (Annexure A-8) was submitted to the competent authority. It is in this backdrop of the matter, order dated 9.1.2015 (Annexure A-10) was passed after noticing the fact that respondent No.1 had submitted the aforementioned OBC certificate, which was issued after the last date of submission of the application form and as a consequence thereof, impugned order dated 28.1.2015 (Annexure A-11) terminating the services of respondent No.1 was passed. The aforementioned order was challenged by preferring an Original Application before the CAT and vide order dated 22.5.2015 (Annexure P-3), the same has erroneously been allowed, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the following reasons:-