Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Jayadev Sahu vs Ordnance Factory on 18 August, 2025
O.A. 362 OF 2019 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA No. 362 OF 2019 Reserved on :12.08.2025 Pronounced on :18.08.2025 Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Jayadev Sahu, aged about 42 years, Son of Rama Krishna Sahu, At/PO Jagudakholan, Dist Bolangir, PIN 767066.
......Applicant VERSUS
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Defence Production and Supplies, Ministry of Defence, DHQ Post Office, New Delhi - 110011.
2. Ordnance Factory Board, IOA S K Bose Road, Kolkata - 700001 represented by its Director Genral.
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Badmal, At/PO Badmal, Dist Bolangir 767070.
4. Director General Ordnance (Coordination & Service), Directorate of Ordnance, 10 A, Saheed Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkta 700001 (West Bengal).
5. Chief Managing Director (CMD), Munitions India Limited, Ammunition Factory Khadki, Pune 41103.
......Respondents For the applicant : Mr. B Pujari, counsel Mr B K Nayak, counsel For the respondents: Mr. D K Pattnaik, counsel Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 2 O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M. The applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not granting him appointment to the post of Electrician has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a) To order under Annexure A/12 may be quashed.
b) Direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Electrician in the Ordnance Factory, Badmal immediately effective from 2002.
3. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that the respondents had issued advertisement No. 1 of 2000 inviting applications for different posts including Electrician and the applicant had applied for the post of Electrician. It is submitted that there were 17 posts of Electrician out of which 9 were meant for candidates belonging to Other Backward Classed (OBC). It is submitted that written test and interview was held on 28.11.2000 and 20.02.2001. It is submitted that vie letter dated 29.11.2002 the General Manger had forwarded copies of attestation forms to the applicant to be resubmitted duly filled in and the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 3 applicant had submitted attestation forms. The applicant was issued call letter vide letter dated 06.01.2003 but when the applicant went to appear at the specified place he was not allowed to appear in the written test and was intimated that since he has been selected and issued with attestation form in the previous selection process he would not be allowed to appear in the present written test. It I submitted that applicant waited for his appointment and then submitted representation dated 07.12.2004, 12.01.2005, 21.03.2005, 25.04.2005 and 17.10.2005. It is submitted that vide letter dated 02.11.2005 he was intimated that due to amendment of recruitment rules and cadre review the requirement of manpower was reviewed and it was decided that the post of Electrician was not required. It is submitted that applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 206/2006 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2007 basing on respondents submission that there was no requirement of Electrician at that point of time. It is submitted that applicant obtained information dated 18.02.2010 under RTI Act that 4 candidates had been appointed in the factory as Electrician. It is submitted that Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 4 further vide letter dated 08.08.2016 that 31 posts were lying vacant It is submitted that applicant submitted his representation dated 23.08.2016 and then moved Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 20201 of 2016 which was disposed of by order dated 01.12.2016 allowing to be withdrawn to move this Tribunal. It is submitted that before the applicant could move this Tribunal a fresh advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Electrician. It is submitted that applicant submitted an application to the General Manger on 27.06.2017 to allow him to join as Electrician now that posts of Electricians are available and cited decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shankarsan Das vrs Union of India (AISIJ Vol 43 1992 (i)), Purusottam vs Chairman MSEB and others (SCC L&S 1999 1050) and Abdul Hakeem vrs Union of India and others (2006 ATO). It is submitted that when the respondents did not respondent to his representation he approached Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 13917 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2017 directing the respondents to take a decision of his representation within a period of three months. It is Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 5 submitted that when the respondents did not dispose of the representation, he filed CONTC No. 936/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.08.2018 to comply with the direction within a period of three months. It is submitted that the General Manger vide order dated 01.10.2018 disposed of the applicants representation rejecting his claim. Hence the OA.
3. The respondents filed their counter inter alia averring that the OA needs to be dismissed on the principle of res judicata since the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court with similar prayers and the same has been dismissed. It is submitted that consequent upon selection for the post of Electrician in the year 2000 a blank format of PVR was sent to applicant on 29.11.2002 wherein at para 4 it has been indicated that issuance of Attestation Forms/PVRs is no guarantee or commitment to issue an appointment order. It is submitted that appointing authority reviewed the requirement of Electrician in the Factory in 2003 and came to conclusion that there was no requirement of Electrician and thus 12 selected candidates including the applicant have not been Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 6 appointed and the applicant was intimated vide letter dated 02.11.2005. It is submitted that in the year 2009, Ex-Trade Apprentice as per Apprentice Act of Govt. of India, four candidates had been appointed and that was not direct recruitment. It is submitted that in the year 2017, 36 posts of Electrician were advertised but the applicant did not apply for the same probably because he was overaged. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant filed his rejoinder reiterating the stands taken by him in the OA and submitted that clause in attestation form does not give the authority to be arbitrary in the matter and that the applicant is entitled to legitimate expectation and he has indefeasible right to be appointed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal challenging the letter dated 02.11.2005 whereby the respondents had communicated to him that the post of Electrician is not required at present scenario and hence he has not been appointed pursuance to advertisement of the year 2000. This Tribunal after hearing both sides and also the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 7 citations relied by learned counsel for the applicant in the cases of Shankarsan Das vrs Union of India (AISIJ Vol 43 1992 (i)), Purusottam vs Chairman MSEB and others (SCC L&S 1999 1050) and Abdul Hakeem vrs Union of India and others (2006 ATO) had held as follows:
17. We have considered the case carefully and perused the documents. It is admitted position that the test and interview for the selection in the irst phase was held on 28.11.2000 and 20.02.2001 in which the applicant was selected and issued attestation forms.
However as the sanctioned strength has been revised, the applicant does not get indefeasible right for appointment even if he has been selected in the interview and test as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sankarsan Das Vrs. Union of India(SUPRA).
18. The case law quoted by the Learned Counsel for the applicant does not help him in any way. In case of Purushottam Vs. Chariman MSEB, vacancies were available but panel of selected candidates had expired. Similarly in case of Abdul Hakim P. Veto, it was held that selected candidates awaiting appointment shall be accommodated before heading for fresh recrutment. Whereas in the present case under consideration neither any vacancies were available nor any candidates selected wither in Phase I or Phase II were given appointment
19. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Haryana V.Des Raj Sangar. (1976) 2 SCC 844, at page 847 as follows:
"Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. As long as such decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by the Court. It is not open to the court to go behind the wisdom of the decision and substitute its own opimon for that of the Government on the point as to whether a post should or should not be abolished. Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 8
16. In view of the above discussion, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. It is clear from the above that the action of the respondents in cancelling the recruitment in pursuance to advertisement of the year 2000 in spite of supplying Attestation Forms has been upheld by this Tribunal and no illegality was found. The case of the applicant that since the respondents have further issued advertisement in the year 2017 for the post of Electrician and he should be given appointment since he was selected in the year 2000 is not tenable since being selected once 17 years earlier will not give indefeasible right to be given against posts for which recruitment is being done currently. The decision of Purshottam vs Chariman MSEB relied by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable since no panel was created back then. The appointment was cancelled since the respondents on reviewing the cadre had decided against recruiting in the post of Electrician at that point of time. No further recruitment immediately was held for the post of Electrician, therefore the case of Adul Hakeen P Vs UOI relied by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in this case.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 13:39 O.A. 362 OF 2019 9
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant warranting interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
(csk)
Signed By:C SADISH
KUMAR
Signing Date:18.08.2025
13:39