LAWS(P&H)-1998-11-171

PRITPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 17, 1998
PRITPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Pritpal Singh has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions of this Court in the nature of writ of certiorari for the quashment of the order dated 3.9.1997 Annexure P.15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and it has been further prayed that a mandate be issued to the respondents to cancel the termination order of the services of the petitioner and further directions be issued to the respondents to reappoint the petitioner on the post he was serving at the time of termination of his services.

(2.) Some of the facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a joint written statement. They have taken the plea of delay and laches by way of preliminary objection. On merits, the stand of these respondents is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on 23.12.1987 but he was never promoted as Senior Clerk. He was working purely on ad hoc basis as officiating Senior Clerk in a higher grade of Rs. 1200-2040. It has been admitted by these respondents that the petitioner applied for the post of Commercial Apprentice through proper channel. He appeared in the written test on 28.4.1991 at Jammu Tawi and he was called for interview on 28.8.1991 on his being eligible but he was not finally selected. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner to the post of Commercial Apprentice on the basis of a forged letter. When it was confirmed by the Railway Recruitment Board that panel No. 215 dated 29.8.1991 was bogus and was fraudulently constituted and that the name of the petitioner was never borne on the original and authenticated panel No. 215 in those circumstances the services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of Commercial Apprentice. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner had fraudulently accepted to undergo the training on the basis of the bogus panel which completely shows involvement of the petitioner in this bogus and forged panel. The petitioner demitted his original post of clerk and officiating Senior Clerk before joining as Commercial Apprentice, his name was, therefore, struck off from the strength of the clerks and as such, he had no lien upon these posts. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief on account of laches as he demitted his post as clerk in the year 1992. Thus, in short, the stand of the respondents is that since panel No. 215 was not validly constituted, the petitioner being the beneficiary, he does not get legal right to work as Commercial Apprentice and that the petitioner demitted his office as clerk on joining as Commercial Apprentice in the year 1992, therefore, he is not entitled to the post of clerk/officiating Senior Clerk on account of delay and laches.