Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Dharamvir Singh vs Union Of India Through on 3 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.377/2010 New Delhi, this the 3rd day of February, 2010 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) OA No.377/2010 Shri Dharamvir Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh H. No.298, Gali No.8, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi 110 051. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Sh. Padma Kumar S.) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Director of Printing Directorate of Printing Ministry of Urban Development Government of India B Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011. 3. Manager Govt. of India Press Aligarh (U.P.) . Respondents. : O R D E R (ORAL) : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Dharamvir Singh, the Applicant herein has filed this OA against the action of the Director of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, whereby the recruitment process to the post of Assistant Binder has been kept under suspended animation based on the Respondents Order issued in OM dated 3.4.2008 (Page 23). Consequent to an advertisement issued by the Government of India Press, Aligarh, which appeared in the Employment News dated 10-16/11/2007 (Page 15), the Applicant applied for the post of Assistant Binder and was selected, as is evident from the notice received by him, from the Government of India Press, Aligarh, vide their notice dated 12.03.2008 (Page 14 A). The said notice indicates that he was selected for the post of Assistant Binder in the Printing Press and he was required to submit three copies of six documents with educational/caste and experience certificates. The Applicant submitted the same vide his letter dated 25.03.2008. However, since the Respondents, Government of India Press, Aligarh found certain defects in the Certificates, the Applicant was directed in their notice dated 3.04.2008 (Page-23) to remove all the short comings and submit the same. In the meantime, due to the general directions issued by the Directorate of Printing, Government of India, vide their OM dated 3.4.2008 the matter of his appointment was kept under suspended animation.
2. At the admission stage itself, Shri Padma Kumar S., the learned Counsel for the Applicant took us through the background of the case and submitted that similar issue for appointment to the post of Assistant Binder in the Respondent-3s Press has come before this Tribunal in OA No.1194/2009 in the case of Shri Diwakar vs. Government of India Press & Other decided on 7.12.2009 by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in which one of us [Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)] was also a Member. Shri Padma Kumar S. submits that the Applicant would be satisfied if the same directions are issued in terms of the order passed in OA No.1194/2009.
3. We have carefully gone through the background of the case and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench on 7.12.2009 in OA No.1194/2009 and find that the present OA is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the said OA. We take the extract of the Paragraphs 4 & 5 of the order passed in the said OA, which reads as follows :-
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is not disputed by the respondents that 19 posts of Assistant Binder were advertised by them. The applicant was selected alongwith 18 other persons and given offer of appointment on the said post. It is also not disputed that 18 persons have already joined as Assistant Binder from the same selection process. The question here is, even if some irregularities have been reported in the selection process and the matter is being investigated, the result would affect all the persons who have been selected in the said recruitment process. When all other 18 persons have been allowed to join, we do not understand, why applicant alone should be denied appointment on this ground. In any case, as on date the respondents have not recorded any specific findings on the irregularities alleged to have been committed in the recruitment process, therefore, there is no justification to deny appointment to the applicant alone.
5. In these circumstances, we remit this matter back to the authorities for considering the matter afresh and for passing appropriate orders in the matter within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant. Respondents can always give appointment to the applicant subject to the decision to be taken by the investigating agencies in the matter. OA stands disposed of. No costs.
4. In view of the above facts in the present OA, we find that the issues involved in the current OA are fully covered by the above decision of this Tribunal in OA No.1194/2009 and we accordingly decide the same and direct the Respondents to take decision in the matter as per directions of the Tribunal in OA No.1194/2009 decided on 7.12.2009.
5. With the above directions, the OA stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/pj/