Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram : Hon Ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand vs Union Of India Through Engineer-In ... on 12 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.76-HR-2012 Date of Order : 12.10.2012
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) AND
HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)
Army No. 13746721P Pala Ram, age 50 years, Mate FGM, C/o Garrison Engineer Chandimandir.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Engineer-in Chief, Ministry of Defence, Army HQ, New Delhi.
2. Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir, Distt. Panchkula.
3. Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone, N Area, Airport Road, Chandigarh.
4. Commander Works Engineer, Chandimandir.
5. Garrison Engineer, Chandimandir.
Respondents
Present : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
O R D E R (oral)
JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, JM
1. Facts, un-controverted during the course of hearing are as under.
2. The applicant herein was successful at the (initial) selection process held for appointment to the post of Chowkidar. Certain number of candidates, who could not make the grade at that selection, called the selection into question, by filing O.A.Nos.656-HR-2001, 658-HR-2001 & 917-PB-2001.
3. The selection aforementioned, came to be quashed by the Tribunal, vide common order dated 3.7.2002 (Annexure A-1/Annexure R-1). The view obtained by the Tribunal was affirmed in Judicial Review Jurisdiction.
4. SLPs No.21772-21773/2002 (Surinder Pal & Another Vs. Union of India & Others) and (CC) No.9491-9493/2002 (Iqbal Mohammad & Ors.Vs. Union of India & Ors.), too, came to be negatived. Copies of the orders dated 11.7.2003 granted in SLPs No. 21772-21773/2002 is Annexure A-3; while a copy of the order dated 11.12.2004 granted in latter SLP is at Annexure A-4.
5. The former declined to interfere in SLP jurisdiction, but directed that those of the petitioners whose services have not yet been terminated, will be permitted to continue until they are replaced by duly selected candidates.
6. Annexure R-4 also announced dismissal of the SLP but the Apex Court further observed therein that the petitioners, who are continuing may be permitted to continue until a fresh selection is made and they are replaced by duly selected candidates and Such continuation however will not confer any additional right to them.
7. In pursuance of the orders of the Apex Court vide Annexures R-3 and R-4, a fresh selection process was held on 7.2.2002 and 31.3.2002. The applicant herein was successful at that process too. Appointment letter dated 12.82003 (A-4) came to be issued in favour of the applicant on the basis of that selection process.
8. Before the issuance of appointment order, annexure A-4 dated 12.8.2003, the services of applicant came to be terminated vide orders dated 5.8.2003 (A-3).
9. The claim presently made is for counting the service rendered by the applicant, all along, till he joined in pursuance of the appointment letter (A-4), for protection of pay and for invalidation of order dated 10.9.2011 (A-6) rejecting his claim for regularization of seniority w.e.f. 9.3.2000.
10. The grant of a favourable consideration of the claim raised by the applicant would compulsively entail our tinkering with the merit list which must have been prepared at the subsequent selection process. Apart from the fact that the candidates selected at that process have not been impleaded as party-respondents, we are not authorized to tinker with the merit placement of candidates (who came to be selected along with applicant) at the subsequent selection process. We are justified in holding this view, particularly when the Honble Apex Court (in the course of order, Annexure R-4), had categorically indicated that the continuation of the applicant (and likes of him) would not confer any additional right upon them. The applicant is presently in occupation of the placement in the light of the outcome of the subsequent selection process.
11. The earlier selection process had been quashed by the Tribunal and the finding of quashment was upheld in judicial review jurisdiction and also by the Honble Apex judicial dispensation. The grant of a favourable consideration to the plea raised by the applicant would not be in accord with the invalidation of the earlier selection process which (finding) has attained finality.
12. In the light thereof, O.A. is held to be devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Place: Chandigarh Dated:12.10.2012 HC* 1 O.A.NO.76-HR-2012