Indian Council Of Agricultural ... vs Amar Singh And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 3895 Del

$~9
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 673/2012
       INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
       RESEARCH AND ORS                       ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur, Advocate

                          versus

       AMAR SINGH AND ORS                         ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Ms. Monica Kapoor, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

                                ORDER

%                               15.05.2015

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to

question the tenability of the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') in Original Application

(in short 'OA') No.1787/2010.

2. Assailing the legality and correctness of the order passed by the

learned Tribunal, Mr. Gagan Mathur, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the services of these respondents were terminated

by the order dated 24.04.2010 passed by the Competent Authority and the

order of termination passed against these respondents is termination

simplicitor and not a stigmatic order. The learned counsel also submits

that these respondents were on probation and the petitioners were well

within their rights to terminate the services of the respondents without

stating any reason and without serving any Show Cause Notice. He

further submits that there was a complete irregularity in the process of

carrying out the recruitment of these respondents as the Director of the

petitioners Institute did not place these posts before the Annual Direct

Recruitment Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'ADRP') for clearance and

they were not shown in ADRP for the years 2006-2007 & 2007-2008.

The learned counsel also submits that even the clearance of the governing

body of the petitioners Institute was not obtained before issuing the

Notifications dated 20.06.2008. The learned counsel also submits that the

selection process was in complete violation of para 8 of the Scheme for

Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme 1993 framed by

DoP&T whereby two out of every three vacancy in Group 'D' have to be

filled up from casual labourer with temporary status as per the

recruitment rules. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of medical sciences (2002) 1 SCC 520.

2. Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar

AIR 2002 SC 1119.

3. Ms. Monica Kapoor, the learned counsel for the respondents, on

the other hand, submits that these respondents were long term daily wage

employees working with the petitioners but since the petitioners were not

giving them temporary status and were also not taking any steps to absorb

them against regular vacancies of Group- D, therefore, they had

approached the learned Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur (in short 'ID')

wherein an award was passed in their favour which was also upheld by

the High Court of Allahabad. The submission of the learned counsel for

the respondents is that it is pursuant to the direction given by the High

Court of Allahabad, that the petitioners issued an advertisement to invite

applications for the post of Supporting Staff (in short 'SS') Grade-I

(Class-IV Post) under Direct Recruitment quota and the respondents had

applied against these posts and were finally selected. The learned counsel

also submits that these respondents were given appointment on the said

post and in fact they had worked for over a period of one year and 10

months but the petitioners not only denied them their salary and other

dues but also terminated their services vide order dated 24.04.2010. The

learned counsel further submits that since no reasons were given by the

petitioners for terminating their services, therefore, they had sought

information from the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005

(hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act') and in the reply submitted by

them, the respondents for the first time came to know that the reason for

their termination was that there were some defect in their 'Papers'. The

learned counsel further submits that before the learned Tribunal, the

petitioners gave different reason for terminating their services and the

same being that the petitioners found gross irregularities in the

appointment of these respondents, and their appointments were not

cleared by the governing body of the petitioners and the same was thus in

complete violation of para 8 of the Grant of Temporary Status and

Regularisation Scheme 1993 framed by DoP&T. The submission of the

learned counsel for the respondents is that there was no fault on the part

of the respondents as they were duly selected by the selection committee

and were given appointment as direct recruits and during the period of

probation at no stage any complaint or grievance was raised against their

functioning. It is further stated that, it is only when the respondents had

approached the learned Tribunal then for the first time the petitioners

came up with the said pleas to justify their stand of terminating the

services of these respondents. Based on these submissions, the learned

counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or perversity

in the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal in the order passed by it.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioners was repeatedly asked as to why and on what basis in their

reply to the RTI, the reason for termination given by them was that there

were defects in the 'Papers' of these candidates. The learned Tribunal in

the impugned order has also held that neither the petitioners nor their

counsel could explain as to what kind of defects were noticed in the

'Papers' of these candidates and therefore, such a stand taken by the

petitioners in their reply to the RTI seems unfounded. The learned

Tribunal further held that the reasons given by the petitioners under the

RTI Act and the reasons given by them in their reply to the OA preferred

by the respondents are far from true. It is not the case of the respondents

that the termination order issued by the petitioners was stigmatic but the

question is, what were the actual reasons to terminate the services of

these respondents who were duly selected by the selection committee

pursuant to the notification issued by the petitioners to invite applications

from the candidates to fill the post of Supporting Staff Grade-I (Class-

IV) in compliance of the direction given by the Allahabad High Court

after an award was passed in favour of these respondents in ID No.

128/189.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Apex Court in Pavanendra Narayan's case (supra). In

that case the matter in issue was whether the termination of the

employees was a termination simplicitor or was it punitive. In the case at

hand, it is abundantly clear that the termination of respondents was

termination 'simplicitor' and hence not in issue. Reliance placed by the

counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Union of India v. O. Chakradhar's case (supra) is also of no

relevance as the issue in this case is not of termination of service without

stating reasonable grounds but rather is a case where the whole selection

process was vitiated.

7. Surprisingly, the reasons which the petitioners had given in their

reply to the RTI had no foundation, the same being that there were some

defects in the 'Papers' of these respondents and the said reasons also are

found to be non-existent as is evident from the stand taken by the

petitioners in their reply to the OA and the present Writ Petition.

8. In the background of these facts the learned Tribunal is correct in

observing that these respondents were selected by the duly appointed

selection committee and their selection was made after a due process and

therefore, their termination on the vague ground given by the petitioners

was a decision totally illegal and unwarranted. In so far as the stand taken

by the petitioners that selection process of these respondents was irregular

and these respondents were beneficiaries of the same, the learned

Tribunal has left it open to the petitioners to take the appropriate action as

per law. We hardly find any tangible ground to take a different view than

the one taken by the learned Tribunal.

9. We find no merit in the Present Writ Petition and the same is

hereby dismissed.

10. We accordingly, uphold the order passed by the learned Tribunal

and direct the petitioners to comply with the direction given by the

learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this

order.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

MAY 15, 2015 Pkb/v