Delhi High Court
Kashi Ram Yadav vs The Commissioner Kendriya ... on 18 January, 2022
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 18.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 13239/2021 & CM No.41788/2021
KASHI RAM YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr R.K. Sonkiya, Adv.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDHYALAYA
SANGTHAN & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr R. Rajappa Sr. St. Counsel with
Mr R. Gowrishankar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.09.2021,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in
OA No.2125/2021.
2. The brief facts of the case which are required to be noticed are as
follows:
2.1. The petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Senior
Secretariat Assistant [SSA] in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Ooty, via
letter dated 20.01.2020. The petitioner was informed that he had to join his
post on or before 10.02.2020.
2.2. Concededly, the petitioner did not join the post by the date indicated
in the letter of appointment.
2.3. The petitioner, admittedly, sought an extension which was granted to
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
00:54:28
him up-until 31.03.2020, pursuant to his representation dated 18.03.2020,
via memorandum dated 19.03.2020. Notably, this request for extension was
preceded by an earlier request made by the petitioner, via communication
dated 11.02.2020.
2.4. Concededly, on 25.03.2020 i.e., six days before the extended deadline
for joining the post was to expire, the petitioner made another request for
extension of time because of prevalence of coronavirus. The extension
sought was till 20.04.2020. On 26.03.2020, the respondents communicated
to the petitioner that he could join "after this problem" was over; by which
they possibly meant that ferocity of the pandemic subsided.
2.5. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner got no response to the
communications that followed thereafter, including the communication
dated 15.06.2020.
2.6. The petitioner, it appears, amongst other communications, also wrote
to the respondents on 05.10.2020.
2.7. It is not in dispute that, based on the petitioner's request made in his
communication dated 05.10.2020, the time given to the petitioner to join the
subject post was extended till 12.10.2020. It was made clear though, that if
the petitioner would fail to join the post by the said date, the offer of
appointment shall stand cancelled.
2.8. The record shows that despite the extension granted up-until
12.10.2020, a further extension was granted by the respondents till
17.10.2020, via memorandum dated 14.10.2020. Admittedly, the petitioner
failed to join duty on the date indicated by the respondents i.e., 17.10.2020.
3. It is in these circumstances that the offer of appointment was
cancelled by the respondents on 20.10.2020.
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
00:54:28
3.1. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, entered into correspondence
with the respondents, and in this context, reference is made to the
communications dated 21.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 23.11.2020, 27.11.2020,
09.12.2020, 23.12.2020, 31.12.2020, 11.01.2021, 29.01.2021, and
09.02.2021. It is relevant to note though that communications dated
09.12.2020, 23.12.2020 and 31.12.2020, have not been placed on record.
3.2. These communications were followed by a legal notice served by the
petitioner to the respondents, on 16.02.2021
3.3. The record indicates that the petitioner approached this court, in the
first instance, by way of a writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 6197/2021 which
was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Tribunal.
3.4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached the Tribunal.
3.5. The Tribunal, after recording the dates and events to which we have
made a reference above, via the impugned order dated 27.09.2021, declined
to interfere with the order of cancellation of the offer of appointment dated
20.10.2020.
4. Mr R. K. Sonkiya, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that
the petitioner was not able to join duty because of Covid-19 obtaining both
in Delhi as well as Coimbatore in March 2020.
4.1. Mr Sonkiya says that the petitioner did attempt to join the service on
or before 17.10.2020. In support of this plea, reliance is placed on a copy of
air ticket, which was apparently bought by the petitioner to travel from Delhi
to Coimbatore.
4.2. Mr Sonkiya says that the petitioner missed his flight as he was caught
in traffic jam, and therefore, had to cancel his air journey.
5. On the other hand, Mr R. Rajappa, who appears on behalf of the
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
00:54:28
respondents, says that the petitioner was granted enough leeway to join the
subject post.
5.1. It is Mr Rajappa's contention that, in February 2020, when the
petitioner was asked to join for the first time, there were no restrictions in
place on account of Covid-19.
5.2. Furthermore, Mr Rajappa says that the petitioner's inability to act with
alacrity cannot be the reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal or the
action of the respondents in cancelling the offer of appointment.
5.3. In support of his plea, Mr Rajappa has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16.09.2021, passed in Civil Appeal
No. 5724/2021, titled Nilesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
Anr..
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6.1. The dates and events noticed by us hereinabove are not in dispute.
6.2. What clearly emerges is that from the very first instance, the
petitioner sought accommodation to join the offered post.
6.3. That apart, it has been correctly stated by Mr Rajappa that when the
petitioner was asked to join the post on or before 10.02.2020, there were no
restrictions prevailing in the country on travel on account of Covid-19.
6.4. As is evident from a bare perusal of the record, that the respondents
on more than one occasion accommodated the petitioner. Extension of time
for joining was granted to the petitioner over a period of eight (8) months.
However, this leeway was narrowed down in October 2020, when situation
vis-a-vis COVID-19 had improved.
6.5. As adverted to hereinabove, the petitioner recognised this fact and
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
00:54:28
decided to join the post before the last extension expired i.e., before
17.10.2020.
7. The petitioner's lack of alacrity, and if we may say so indolence, is
reflected in his approach, which is, that he did not factor in a realistic
journey-time required, having regard to the traffic on the road, to reach the
airport at the appointed hour. The petitioner's portrayal that he missed his
flight on 16.10.2020 on account of a traffic jam; if true, shows his inability
to plan and factor in expected occurrences.
7.1. In our view, no further indulgence can be given to the petitioner.
7.2. It appears that, for whatever reason, the petitioner was reluctant, at
least in the beginning, to join the offered post of SSA at Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, Ooty.
8. Thus, given the foregoing circumstances, we find no reason to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2021.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, pending
application shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
JANUARY 18, 2022/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
00:54:28
