BABITA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appointment of writ petitioner to the post of GDSBPM, (hereinafter referred to as the 'post'), has been ordered to be quashed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), constraining her to file the instant writ claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) On 9.2.2002, the post in question fell vacant on account of death of its incumbent Rattan Singh, (father of respondent No.4 herein). The respondent No.4 sought appointment on compassionate grounds, but his case was rejected. In the meanwhile, the official respondents appointed writ petitioner to the post which was assailed by respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, on the ground that the post was neither advertised nor given wide publicity and moreover all the six candidates who participated in the selection process were related to the employees of the respondent department.

(3.) The official respondents in their reply had averred that the post in question was initially reserved for OBC candidate, but despite giving wide publicity only one application was received till last date, whereas in terms of the rules, a minimum of three applications from OBC candidates should have been received so as to consider the candidature of the applicant. In this eventuality, the post in question was declared to be unreserved and the Sub Employment Officer, Rajgarh was again requested vide letter dated 2.9.2008 to nominate eligible candidates for the said post. Simultaneously, an open notice was also issued to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhuira for giving wide publicity to the post. The last date for receiving applications was fixed as 1.10.2008 and by this time, six applications were received. However, Sub Employment Officer, Rajgarh did not supply any list of candidates. The official respondents, after considering the candidatures of all the six candidates, appointed one Sh. Sanjay Thakur who was having the highest marks in matriculation examination, but since he refused to join, the next candidate i.e. the writ petitioner was approved and offered the post of GDS BPM. It was further stated that respondent No.4 did not apply for the post in question, therefore, he has no locus standi to assail the appointment of writ petitioner herein.