UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure-2), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 524 of 2002 (Shri Shailendra Kumar vs. Union of India and Another), whereby the order dated 9.5.2001, passed by the authorities has been set aside and they have been directed to allow the applicant (respondent no. 1 herein) to complete his training course for the remainder period of Probationary Junior Telecom Officer. The writ petition is further directed against the order dated 17.1.2005 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Tribunal in R.A. No. 34 of 2004 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bihar Circle, Patna vs. Sri Shailendra Kumar), whare by the Corporation's review application has been rejected.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Jalandhar Sao, the father of respondent no. 1 herein, was in the Corporation's employment. He died on 21.2.1977, while posted as a Draftsman. The Corporation took up the cause of the widow and offered to her an employment in the Corporation which she declined, inter alia, on the ground that her son (respondent no. 1 herein) was still a student of Class-IX and his case may be considered after he is of age. Respondent No. 1 completed his studies, acquired Diploma in Engineering and had perhaps stood first in the examination. He thereafter filed application dated 24.12.1986, seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Corporation passed order dated 25.11.1988, whereby it had offered employment to respondent no.1 herein as a daily wager, and he started working as such. This was followed by order dated 8.10.1991, whereby a number of persons, who were working as casual mazdoors, were appointed as Junior Telecom Officer. It involved training covering a period of 16 weeks. The training of respondent no.1 commenced on 12.10.1992, which he discontinued with effect from 28.12.1992 for the reason that he was implicated in a dowry-related prosecution. He was granted bail on 5.3.1993. Soon thereafter he reported for training but was not allowed to join leading to O.A. No. 281 of 1996. During the pendency of the original application, he was acquitted by the learned trial court by judgment dated 27.5.1998. O.A. No. 281 of 1996 was disposed of by order dated 11.10.2000, whereby the Corporation was directed to conduct an enquiry to consider the case of the applicant (respondent no.1 herein) and pass a final order. It appears from a perusal of the order that the respondent authorities had, inter alia, raised objection before the learned Tribunal that the appointment of respondent no.1 was liable to be cancelled because his mother, at the time of his father's demise, was working as headmistress in a Government School and drawing Rs. 12,000/- per month approximately, and respondent no.1 had obtained appointment on compassionate ground that none in the family was employed.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General in reply submits that the Tribunal disposed of both the original applications unmindful of the question whether or not it had the jurisdiction over the Corporation. In his submission, the Tribunal has examined all issues of facts and law and, therefore, there is no necessity to remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal. This Court may examine the matter on merits to save time and further harassment to the parties as well as the Courts.