Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by applying the legal principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Rekha Chaturvedi, acceptance of the transfer certificate of respondent no. 4 after the date of application and the completion of the selection process is illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and the case of Ashok Sonkar and submitted that the relevant cut-off date for testing the eligibility qualification must be considered on the date of application.

23. Learned counsel for Zilla Parishad referred to the gazette notification dated 21st January 1980. He submitted that the documents submitted by respondent no.4 clearly indicated that she was nominated as PAP being the daughter-in-law of the PAP. He submits that in view of clause(c) of Section (6) of the Rehabilitation Act, a PAP is entitled to nominate any of the family members to avail the benefit of the PAP certificate. He submits that clause (4) of the certificate provides for an obligation on the employer to inform the Rehabilitation Officer of availing the benefit. He, therefore, submits that clause (5) of the certificate clearly shows the entitlement of the dependent family members of the PAP's family. He thus submits that once there is no dispute that respondent no. 4 belongs to the family of PAP and a transfer certificate in her name is submitted before completion of the selection process, it amounts to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the selection process.

49. I do not find any substance in the arguments of learned counsel for Zilla Parishad that, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Rekha Chaturvedi, this court should refuse to interfere in the selection process as almost fourteen years have elapsed from the date of selection. There is no dispute that by the interim order passed by the trial court, which this court also continued, respondent no. 4's appointment was made subject to the final approval and decision in the suit. Even the appointment order of respondent no. 4 states that it is subject to the final approval and decision in the suit. Therefore, respondent no. 4 cannot claim any equity. Thus respondent no. 4's application cannot be validated on the ground that the selection process was completed fourteen years back.

(iii) Respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall accordingly reconsider the appointment to the post of Supervisor (Women), pursuant to the 1-SA-297-2016.docx selection process conducted as per the advertisement dated 5th March 2010 and consider the appellant's application for the appointment to the said post in accordance with law, pursuant to the selection process that is completed as per the said advertisment dated 5th March 2010.