SHAMBHU NATH CHOUBEY Vs. UNION OT INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed against the order, dated 20.12.2006 passed in O.A. No. 822 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") had dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner, an Advocate seeking his appointment as Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as quashing the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 as Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna and Kolkata respectively.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the said application before the Tribunal as set out in the writ application is that pursuant to an advertisement, dated 11.7.2003 inviting application for the post of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Patna, Cuttack, Kolkata and Ahmedabad, prescribing the last date of filing of the applications within 30 days of the advertisement, the petitioner, a practicing Advocate claiming to be qualified in terms of Article 233 of the Constitution of India (being eligible to be appointed as a District Judge by virtue of his being an advocate with practicing experience of more than seven years, had submitted his application for the post of Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It has been stated by the petitioner that he alongwith other eligible candidates in terms of the advertisement were called to appear in an interview conducted by a Selection Committee in the month of February, 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that his performance in the said interview was quite satisfactory and as such, he had reasons to believe that he was recommended and selected by the Selection Committee for the said post of the Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner, however, had stated that even though he had been recommended and selected by the Selection Committee, the officials of the Ministry of Finance who with a mala fide motive and manipulations did not appoint him and instead appointed others including respondent no. 4 as Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent no. 4 as contained in the letter of the Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance, dated 8.10.2004 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4 was also asked to take over the charge of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna by 25.10.2004. The petitioner had initially filed a representation before the Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance on 1.11.2004 requesting that the result of the selection as with regard to the Presiding Officer should be communicated to him because he had reasons to believe that he had been selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and yet he was not appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that when in response to his representation. dated 1.11.2004 he did not hear anything from the respondent officials of the Union of India, he had filed the said O.A. No. 822 of 2004 on 29.11.2004 for setting aside the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 on the post of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Patna and Kolkata respectively as well as for a consequential direction for his appointment on the post of the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal either at Patna or at Kolkata. The Tribunal ultimately by an order, dated 20.12.2004 has dismissed the O.A. filed by the writ petitioner. The Tribunal in the process of dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioner had rejected that the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 4 was not qualified to be appointed as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna and had also found no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the application filed by respondent no. 4 was not submitted by him within the prescribed time limit as setout in the advertisement.

(3.) I am afraid I cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that there is no pleadings as to when the respondent no. 4 had submitted his application in response to the advertisement in question. The requirement under the advertisement in this regard was that suitable and wiling persons may send their applications with details as enumerated in the proforma enclosed with the advertisement to the Under Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs within 30 days of publication of this advertisement. However, it was also mentioned in the advertisement itself that the persons already in service had to send their application strictly through the organization in which they were employed and their employer were required to send such application of the concerned candidate alongwith Vigilance clearance and attested copies of annual confidential reports of last five years. In fact in the said advertisement, it was also made clear that no action would be taken on the advance copies of the application of such candidates who were already employed unless they were rooted through proper channel i.e. through their employer. The advertisement had also clearly spell out that in case of judicial officers seeking appointment on the post of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, a list of disposal of cases had also to be furnished and in case their annual confidential report was not maintained, a certificate to this effect had to be furnished by the concerned High Court alongwith the Vigilance clearance certificate. Thus, it is clear that the advertisement envisaged application from two different categories of persons, namely, those like the petitioner who were not at all in employment and other like the respondent no. 4 employed in service including Judicial Service. 1/1/2013 Page 60 Yogendra Sharma Versus Bihar State Road Transport Corporation