Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1162 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 11th September, 2000, dismissing OA.572/2000, filed by the Tribunal. The petitioner before the Tribunal challenged the order of termination issued by respondent No. 2 dated 16.3.2000.

2. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement noticed dated 27.7.1996 inviting applications for three posts of Computer Operators, Grade-II. The petitioner figured at serial No. 3 of the selection panel and was appointed by an Order dated 29.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 2. He joined against this post and an satisfactory completion of his probation was confirmed by order dated 1.2.1999 passed by respondent No. 2. However, later he was put on show cause notice dated 11.1.2000 by respondent No. 2 stating that respondent NO. 1 raised objections to his appointment which according to the respondent No. 1 was bad in law and in contravention of CSIR instructions. He replied to this notice, but his services were ordered to be terminated by order dated 16.3.2000. He challenged this in O.A. 572/2000 which was dismissed by impugned order dated 11.9.2000 by Tribunal holding that since appointment was mae erroneously against a non-existing post it was rightly set aside. The petitioner has now filed this petition assailing the Tribunal's order.

3. In our view the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The petitioner had undergone the comprehensive departmental selection procedure. He had been fully found fit and it is not in dispute that he has carried out his duties satisfactorily since his appointment on 29th January, 1998. In fact it is not in dispute that the petitioner had successfully completed his probation and was confirmed by an Order dated 1st February, 1999, passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also brought on record the fact that he is doing a highly specialized job of IMPACT System (Integrated Management of Project and Accounting). Furthermore right since the date o his appointment, the petitioner has been working on the post of Computer Operator and due to the various interim orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal and this Court has continued to do so since 29th January, 1998 up to date. The petitioner will obviously now be handicapped by seeking a fresh employment at this stage of this career. The respondents' purported mistake has led to the present situation and the petitioner cannot be blamed for the error, if any, committed by the respondents. In fact the respondents who have appointed the petitioner after a proper selection procedure are now estopped from contending to the contrary as the petitioner due to the long passage of time cannot now be asked to seek fresh employment.

4. In our view in the impugned order, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the estoppel against the respondent No. 2. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had made a request in December, 1997 regarding the downgrading of Group III post to Group II post. Thereafter it proceeded on an assumption that since the CSIR, respondent No. 1 had not offered any comments on the proceedings, the approval can be presumed. This order was passed on 8th January, 1998 by the Director of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, it was noted on 19th January, 1998 by the respondent No. 2 that there was great demand for immediate appointment of a computer operator and, therefore, in view of the implementation of the business plan and the increasing project work, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 has indeed sought to rely upon its own inaction on the request of the respondent No. 2 to downgrade the posts in Group III to Group II to enable it to fill up the posts of computer operator. The respondent No. 1 while frowning upon the action of respondent No. 2 in assuming its non-disapproval as approval has however, not stated as and when whether the proposal was specifically disapproved by it. The additional affidavit stated that the respondent No. 1-CSIR's Headquarters rejected the request of respondent No. 2 for upgrading the Group-III post to Group-II post. However, the affidavit dated 30th August, 2001 fails to state as to when the proposal to upgrade the post was rejected. This is a crucial factor in determining the laches of the respondent No. 1 in waking up to the alleged mistake of respondent No. 2. In any event, the internal arrangements and misunderstanding between respondent No. 1 & 2 cannot affect the petitioner's rights vested and otherwise and the respondent No. 1's long delay in objecting to the petitioner's appointment is a crucial circumstance not given due weight by the Tribunal.

5. The petitioner has appeared in the interview on 15th March, 1997 and was selected on 29th January, 1998 and even though the proposal to upgrade the post was sent by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in December, 1997, the notice of termination of the petitioner's services was given only on 11th January, 2000. This fact of substantial delay in objecting to the petitioner's employment is crucial and appears to have been totally overlooked by the Tribunal. We have also given due consideration to the severe prejudice which would be caused to the petitioner by this arbitrary delay on behalf of the respondents. Furthermore the petitioner is now doing a highly specialised job of IMPACT System (Integrated Management of Project and Accounting). The petitioner's appointment was also occasioned by the imminent need noted on 19.1.98 by the respondent No. 2 for the immediate appointment of a Computer Operator. The petitioner having been selected by a duly constituted DPC and had been confirmed after satisfactory completion of his probation on 1.2.1999, cannot now be thrown out arbitrarily. Significantly the Tribunal has failed to even advert tot he plea raised by the petitioner that due to the selection by respondent No. 1, he had left his earlier job and had subsequently become over-age. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 11th September, 2000, passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner was entitled to succeed in his application before the Tribunal and the impugned Order dated 16th March, 2000 cancelling the petitioner's appointment is accordingly set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs.