Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Reserved on 24.04.2017)
OA No. 063/00042/2016 Date of decision- 28.04.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Himani Devi D/o Sh. Surjit Singh aged about 19 years,
V.P.O Barma Papri,
Tehsil Nahan,
District Sirmaur, H.P (Group D).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Electronic Niketan, 6-CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Chief Post Master General,
H.P, The Mall,
Shimla.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Solan Division,
Saproon-173211.
4. Dharampal S/o Sh. Gian Chand,
Village & Post Office, Burma Papri, Tehsil Nahan,
District Sirmaur, H.P.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. B.B. Sharma, counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.
Respondent no. 4 in person.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The applicant has assailed the order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure A-8) whereby his appointment as GDSBPM, at Barma Papri was kept in abeyance due to administrative reasons and also the order dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure A-9) passed by respondent no. 3 whereby respondent no. 4 has been transferred from Panjhal to Barma Papri, on which post the applicant was offered appointment.
2. The facts which led to filing of the present O.A are that respondent no. 3 invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up one post of GDSBPM Barma Papri Branch Post Office under SC category, with sub post office Kala Amb. The applicant who was fully eligible as per the advertisement, applied for said post and was considered eligible and offered appointment vide order dated 29.03.2016. She was also asked to complete the formalities by 12.04.2016. In compliance thereto, the applicant submitted the requisite documents. Respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 06.04.2016 kept the appointment order dated 29.03.2016 in abeyance due to administrative reasons. Thereafter, another order dated 25.04.2016 was passed informing the applicant that since respondent no. 4 who was working at Panjhal has been transferred to Barma Papri, as such, the selection process was scrapped. Respondent no. 4 has joined the said place of posting on 26.04.2016. Hence, the present O.A.
3. The official respondents while refuting the claim of the applicant filed the reply wherein they did not dispute the factual accuracy and submitted that respondent no. 4 had already submitted the application for his transfer against the present post and pending that they have notified vacancy. After the selection process, when the application of respondent no. 4 was considered by the competent authority then it was decided to scrap the entire selection by transferring respondent no. 4 against the post available at Barma Papri, Branch Post Office. It has also been submitted that applicant has no right to claim appointment against the said post.
4. We have heard Sh. Vivek Suri, counsel for the applicant and Sh. B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3.
5. Mr. Suri, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that action of the respondents in cancelling the entire selection without recording any reasons is totally illegal and arbitrary , thus, their action be invalidate and a direction be issued to the respondents to appoint the applicant in pursuance of appointment letter dated 29.03.2016. He further argued that only to deprive the applicant from his legitimate right of appointment after selection, the respondents designed the ill mechanism to scrap the entire selection without any justified reasons, only to adjust respondent no. 4 on the post against which the applicant was offered appointment. He also submitted that the post which was notified belongs to SC category whereas the person other than SC category has been adjusted against that post. He, therefore, prayed that impugned orders be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, Sh. B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated what has been stated in the written statement. Apart from that he placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47 and Asha Kaul and another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., 1993(2) SCC 573.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Conjunctive perusal of the pleadings makes it clear that the respondents have invited the application for filling up the one post of GDSBPM vide notification dated 18.01.2016 and the said post was shown under reserved category as that falls under SC quota. It is not disputed that the applicant is eligible person who was selected after valid selection process and vide appointment letter dated 29.03.2016 he was offered appointment. But subsequently, vide order dated 06.04.2016, his appointment order was kept in abeyance on administrative grounds and subsequently, entire selection process was also scrapped and respondent no. 4 was transferred on the post against which the applicant was selected and was offered appointment. We have also perused the original record to find out the reasons much or less the administrative reasons which the respondents have taken while scrapping the selection process. Counsel for the respondents also failed to show any document or noting in official file indicating the reasons for scrapping the selection of the applicant by the competent authority. The only reason which we have seen from the record was that an application for transfer filed by respondent no. 4 was pending with them. Despite there being an application for his transfer to Barma Papri Branch, the respondents issued an advertisement pursuant to which the applicant was selected and was offered appointment. Subsequent to that, it was cancelled and no reasons have been recorded by the competent authority to cancel the selection process. From the narration of above facts, it can safely be concluded that the selection process was cancelled just to adjust respondent no. 4. Once there are no reasons much or less administrative reasons by the competent authority, then action of the official respondents can be termed as arbitrary and illegal as respondent no. 4 could not be transferred on the post against which the applicant was appointed. It has also been held by the Court of law that the Court can remove the curtain to find out the reasons for cancelling the selection process and if Court finds that the reasons are valid, then Court should not interfere in the matter and if reasons found to be otherwise to give benefit to some person, then Court can interfere in decision taken by the Competent authority. In the present case, neither any reasons were given in the written statement nor shown at the time of arguments in the original file. Therefore, we find that action of the respondents in cancelling the selection is arbitrary and accordingly, we quash the impugned order date 06.04.2016 and also the subsequent order dated 25.04.2016.
9. In above terms, O.A is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the applicant to join the post in pursuance of appointment letter dated 29.03.2016, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
10. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 28.04.2017
`jk
1
OA No. 063/00042/2016