Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Krishna Kant Pandey Reported In (2015) 4 ... on 8 December, 2020
Author: S.Panda
Bench: S.Panda
W.P.(C) NO.18951 OF 2020
02. 08.12.2020 This matter is taken up through video conferencing. Heard
Mr.Parhi, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the petitioners and
Mr.B.S.Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Central Government
authorities challenging the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.
No.104 of 2018 whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioners to
reinstate the opposite party in service with all consequential
service benefits except the salary for the period for which he has
not worked.
3. The opposite party-applicant contended before the Tribunal
that an advertisement was issued by the National Technical
Research Organization (NTRO) on 21.03.2007 inviting applications
for recruitment to different posts at NTRO (Doom Dooma) on
deputation/absorption/re-employment/direct recruitment basis. In
response to the said advertisement, the applicant has applied for
the post of Technical Asst. "A" (Re-designated as Technical
Assistant). The educational qualification stipulates for the said post
is Bachelor's Degree or three years Diploma in Electronics and
Communication. After due scrutiny of his application, the applicant
was called upon to appear in the interview held during August,
2007 and thereafter vide letter dated 20.12.2007 he was informed
about his selection to the said post as Technical Assistant and to
produce the original documents. The applicant will be on probation
for a period of two years from the date of joining which may be
extended at the discretion of the competent authority. After due
BP
verification of the relevant documents/certificate, the applicant was
2
issued with an order of appointment posting him as CRSA, Doom
Dooma under the Officer-in-Charge, Data Collection Facility,
CRSA, NTRO, Doom Dooma. He has joined in his post of
Technical Assistant on 18.01.2008 after fulfilling all the formalities.
The period of probation was extended up to 17.01.2012 vide order
dated 18.10.2011 i.e. after 3 ½ years and thereafter it was further
extended up to 17.01.2013 vide order dated 04.04.2012 as he has
discharged his duties to the best satisfaction of his authorities.
However, while he was on leave after due approval, a letter was
issued by petitioner No.2 on 10.04.2012 indicating that his services
were terminated w.e.f. 10.04.2012.
3.1 Challenging the said order, the applicant approached the
Tribunal in O.A. No.359 of 2012. Since the order of termination
was passed violating the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal
by order dated 20.12.2016 disposed of the Original Application
quashing the order of termination. The Tribunal further directed the
authorities to take such action as deemed fit and proper only after
issuing a notice to the applicant to show cause against the
proposed action and the applicant shall be reinstated into service
forthwith. Since the order of the Tribunal was not complied with,
the applicant filed a Contempt Petition before the Tribunal vide
C.P. No.13 of 2017. During pendency of the aforesaid Contempt
Petition, the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated
25.07.2017 in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal. All of a
sudden on 22.11.2017, the applicant received a notice dated
22.11.2017 issued by petitioner No.2 calling upon him to show
3
cause as to why he should not be removed from his services. In
response to the said notice, the applicant submitted his
explanation on 08.12.2017 stating that he had applied for
recruitment for the post of Technical Assistant on direct
recruitment basis as per the circular and after fulfillment of the
prescribed norms and standards he was selected by the
Recruitment Board. He had neither committed any forgery nor
submitted any fake documents in order to get an appointment
rather he has been duly selected through a selection process and
his certificates were also scrutinized at the time of issuance of
appointment letter. However, the petitioner No.2 without
considering the explanation submitted by the applicant in its proper
perspective terminated the services of the applicant vide order
dated 02.02.2018 with immediate effect. The said order was
challenged before the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original
Application.
04. The petitioners-Central Government authorities before the
Tribunal filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that it was not
open for the applicant to apply for the post of Technical Assistant
pursuant to the Circular dated 21.03.2007 of the NTRO as the
same was a restricted Circular. The applicant in unauthorized
manner procured the 'Restricted Circular' in order to apply for the
post of Technical Assistant 'A' in NTRO with the sole aim of
bypassing the open competition and usurping the post of Technical
Assistant 'A' by hook or crook. The selection/appointment of the
applicant as Technical Assistant 'A' in NTRO is irregular. It was
4
further stated that unless the terms of appointment provide for
automatic confirmation after completion of probation period,
termination will follow.
05. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the respective
plea of the parties and the materials placed before it as well as the
Circular dated 21.03.2007 issued by the, NTRO, recorded a finding
that:-
i) It is not the case of the appointing authorities that the
applicant has furnished any false declaration relating to
educational qualifications or regarding his eligibility for
the recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant.
ii) The applicant had applied for the post in response to
a vacancy as per the circular and he did not claim to be
an employee of any government institution as required
under the vacancy circular dated 21.03.2007.
iii) The applicant was selected for the post by the
competent authority in the NTRO.
iv) There is nothing on record to show that any
wrongdoing or malpractice by the officials has been
alleged or action has been taken by the petitioners to
identify persons responsible for alleged irregularities
leading to selection of the applicant.
Accordingly, the Tribunal by the impugned order directed the
petitioners to reinstate the applicant in service with all
consequential service benefits except the salary for the period for
which he has not worked. The said order is under challenge in the
5
present Writ Petition.
06. The contention of Mr.Parhi, learned Asst. Solicitor General
that the opposite party, who is the applicant before the Tribunal is
not eligible for the post is not correct rather as per the vacancy
circular he has applied on direct recruitment basis as reveals from
the Circular itself. In the box reflected on the top of the Circular as
well as below to the said box it has been mentioned as follows:
"
Recruitment to the following posts at NTRO (Doom-Dooma) on
Deputation/Absorption/Re-employment/direct recruitment basis.
National Technical Research Organization, a Scientific & Technical
Organisation of Central Government, invites applications for the
following posts to be filled up on deputation/absorption/re-
employment basis/direct recruitment basis."
In view of the aforesaid Circular wherein it is reflected that the post
can be filled up on direct recruitment basis and the applicant being
duly selected by the Selection Committee, the Tribunal has rightly
observed that there is nothing on record to show that any
wrongdoing or malpractice by the officials has been alleged or
action has been taken by the petitioners to identify persons
responsible for alleged irregularities leading to selection of the
applicant. The Tribunal also taken into consideration that the issue
of the circular has already been decided by order dated
20.12.2016 passed in the earlier O.A. No.359 of 2012 wherein it
was held that the selection of the applicant was on direct
recruitment basis, which was allowed as per the circular dated
21.03.2007. The said order having not been challenged by the
6
petitioners in any higher forum, the same has attained its finality as
such the petitioners have no right to raise the question regarding
eligibility of the applicant for the post of Technical Assistant in
response to the Circular dated 21.03.2007 on the ground that it
was restricted circular. There is no error apparent on the face of
the record so as to warrant interference by this Court. The Apex
Court in the case of M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 held
that where there is error apparent on the face of the record, the
same can be interfered with by a Writ Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
07. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, since there is
no irregularity or malafide in the selection process of the applicant,
the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order. As there is no
error apparent on the face of the record, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order
passed by the Tribunal is to be complied with as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of
production of a copy of this order before the petitioners.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
The parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in
the High Court's website or print thereof at par with the certified
copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's notice No.4587, dated
25.03.2020.
---.----..
S.Panda, J.
.--.-.----
S.K.Panigrahi, J. 7