ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been presented by the petitioner on 13th of May, 1992 and has been admitted after notice for hearing on 23rd of September, 1992. Objections which were filed prior to the admission, on the behest of counsel for the respondents, have been taken on record as counter on his behalf. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as Durwan in the Geological Survey of India, Jammu branch in the year 1986 and allowed to continue till such posts were created and advertised for appointment for selection. Petitioner too applied for one of the posts and was selected by the Select Committee as is apparent from Annexure P -l enclosed with the petition. It is alleged that offer of appointment was made vide Annexure P -l. Some conditions of production the certificates etc. were incorporated in this offer. According to paragraph 14 of this offer, it was stated that if the post is acceptable to the petitioner, he shall join immediately within 15th of April, 1991 otherwise offer will be treated as cancelled. Petitioner, it is alleged, fulfilled all the conditions and submitted his joining report alongwith all required certificates on 27th of March, 1991, copy of which has been placed on record on page 14 of the file as Annexure but the petitioner has not been allowed to join. What the respondent have done is that they have abruptly cancelled such appointment by virtue of Annexure P -5 page 18 without assigning any reason for cancellation of such appointment. This order of cancellation is dated 29th of October, 1991. On this count petitioner has come up with the present petition alleging therein that right has accrued to him by way of selection and the appointment order also was issued which was later on abruptly cancelled by the impugned order. He has come with the prayer that the order impugned i.e. Order No. 2215/A -37102/1/81 dated 29th of October, 1991 be quashed by the issuance of a writ of certiorari and has further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue against the post of Durwan in the Department for which post the petitioner, has been selected and appointed by the respondents vide Order No. 3919/A -37012/1/81 dated 22nd March 1991.

(2.) COUNTER to this petition has been filed. The main ground taken by the respondents is that no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. It was just an offer which could not confer any right on the petitioner. Secondly when the 10 posts were created, a directive and guideline was issued by the Director General to give priority in the recruitment to the persons, who were on Muster Roll and were contingent workers engaged by the Department upto 21st of March. 1979. In case the contingent workers were not available, the posts will be filled up through Employment Exchange. The stand taken by the respondents in this case is that after the advertisement, a few applications came from the contingent servants. So they adopted the second course of advertising the posts through Employment Exchange, Jammu. Application were received and the interviews were held on 12th of February 1991 upto 20th of February, 1991. At the time of interview, some of the contigent workers also appeared in the interview, who were on the Muster Roll and their applications were not received. So it was decided to cancel the offer of appointment to the petitioner and others.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and I have gone through the record. Simple point involved in the case is whether appointment order issued on 22nd March, 1991 which is Annexure P -l could be cancelled by virtue of impuged order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that offer of appointment dated 22nd of March, 1991 is in all respects an appointment order provided that the petitioner would fulfill the conditions put in the order. The order reads as under: -