Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 26 September, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11412 of 1997 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 26.09.2013
Ashok Kumar & Ors.
.......... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & anr.
...... Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)
The petitioners seek quashing of an order dated 24.7.1997 (Annexure P-8) whereby their appointment as Inspectors, Central Excise has been cancelled on the basis of order dated 13.11.1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Annexure P-9).
2. The facts may be briefly noticed. The petitioners belong to reserve category of Other Backward Classes (OBC). They were selected for appointment as Inspectors, Central Excise in an open competition against the above mentioned reserved posts and were appointed vide appointment letters like dated 19.2.1996 (Annexure P-3). Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the above stated selection on the ground that OBC candidates were selected in excess to their prescribed quota.
3. The selected candidates like the petitioners were admittedly not made party to the original application filed before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal allowed the original application vide order dated 13.11.1996 (Annexure P-9) holding Satyawan 2013.10.24 16:37 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 11412 of 1997 2 that vide the impugned recruitment more than 50% posts were reserved, which was contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney's case.
4. In compliance to the above mentioned order of the Tribunal, the respondent-authorities, passed the impugned order dated 24.7.1997 cancelling appointment of the petitioners.
5. It is not disputed by the respondents in their written statement dated 11.11.1997 that the petitioners were not impleaded as party
-respondents to the original application filed by unsuccessful candidates before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. There is no gain saying that no order detrimental to the petitioners' interest could be passed by the Tribunal without giving opportunity of being heard to them. It was after taking notice of this fact that this Court vide order dated 8.8.1997 stayed operation of the impugned order dated 24.7.1997 (Annexure P-8) and directed the official respondents to allow the petitioners to continue on the same posts which they were holding prior to passing of the said order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pleads discrimination as according to him in the case of similarly placed Inspectors namely, S.K. Kamboj and two more Inspectors, the respondents made a statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 324 of 1997 on 27.8.1997 that they have been allowed to continue in service on the same posts.
7. The petitioners are serving from last over 17 years. No defect or illegality in the selection of the petitioners except that the reserved posts were more than 50% of the total advertised posts, was found by the Satyawan 2013.10.24 16:37 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 11412 of 1997 3 Tribunal. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioners is wholly illegal and uncalled for. We, thus, allow this writ petition and quash the impugned orders dated 24.7.1997 (Annexure P-8) and 13.11.1996 (Annexure P-9).
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SURINDER GUPTA) JUDGE 26.09.2013 'Satyawan' Satyawan 2013.10.24 16:37 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh