High Court · 2021
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18147 of 2021 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Mohd Rashid And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Vibhu Rai Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/original application. 2. Petitioner-Union of India/Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, (for short ‘Tribunal’) by the instant writ petition has raised challenge to the order dated 5 March 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in Original Application No. 330/1451 of 2017, allowing the application and directing that the respondent-original applicant be appointed on adhoc basis from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits admissible to him as per Rules. Operative portion of the order reads thus: As it is undisputed fact that applicant No. 1, namely, Mohd. Rashid has resigned far back, no further action can be taken in respect of him. Accordingly Respondent No. 2 is directed to treat the applicant No. 2, Sunny Dev Sharma as appointed on adhoc basis since the date of his initial appointment and to give all consequential benefits to him as per rules. 3. 4. Facts inter se parties are not in dispute. Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has noted the facts. Para-3, 6, 7 and 8 are extracted:
Legal Reasoning
3. The brief facts, necessary for a just and proper adjudication of the case, are that certain vacancies of Stenographers Grade 'D' were lying vacant since long at Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to in short as CAT). The normal procedure for recruitment of Steno Grade 'D' in ACT is either through Staff Selection Commission or through Limited Departmental Examination from LDC of CAT. It appears that Staff Selection Commission and Regional Employment Exchange, both were called to nominate suitable candidates for such purpose by means of several letters sent by CAT but every time they failed to nominate any one. Due to acute shortage of the Stenographers and when Staff Selection Commission (S.S.C.) and the Regional Employment Exchange, both failed to nominate any suitable candidates, the Principal Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, (respondent No. 2) vide a letter dated 11.11.2011 directed the Registrar, Allahabad Bench of CAT to make further efforts for procuring nominations from Regional Employment Exchange for the purpose of such selection and thereafter to appoint such Stenographers/Court Masters on adhoc basis. 6. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 proceeded to initiate above selection through open market and notified the vacancies in the daily newspapers "Times of India" and "Amar Ujala" etc. dated 02.08.2013. The copy of the Recruitment Notification dated 30.07.2013. 7. A perusal of the notification quoted above, shows that certain eligibility conditions have been prescribed in it with the clear stipulation that there are vacant four posts at Allahabad Bench in CAT, (three unreserved and one reserved) which are to be filled up purely on 'adhoc basis' in Pay Band-1 of Rs. 5200- 20200/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-. As regards the other conditions, it has been stipulated that the candidates must have a Matriculation Certificate or equivalent from a recognize Board and he/she must be having a typing speed of 90 words per minute in English. A Degree from a recognized University was also desirable. Candidates of age group between 18 years to 27 years, on the last date of receipt of the applications, were considered eligible. 8. Both the applicants herein, fulfilled the eligibility criteria in all respects. They applied to contest the aforesaid selection, they were issued Admit Cards (Copies of both the Admit Cards dated 13.09.2013 issued to both the applicants are collectively enclosed 2 as Annexure A-7 to this OA.) The examination for selection was scheduled on 28.09.2013. Both the applicants appeared in the examination and performed well. The merit list was prepared by the respondent No. 3, wherein both the applicants stood at Sl. Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. The merit list, containing the names of total eleven candidates, was duly transmitted to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 01.11.2013. (Copy of which is also annexed as Annexure A-9 to this OA.) 5. Grievance of the respondent-original applicant was that he had applied for appointment as per the advertisement in pay- band 5200-2020 + grade-pay Rs. 2400, for the post of stenographer, whereas, the appointment letter that came to be issued was on contract basis on a fixed remuneration at Rs. 9,000/-. 6. Learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the approach of the petitioner tantamounts to unfair practice which has adversely prejudiced the respondent-original applicant. The selection was for adhoc appointment against a vacant post of stenographer against a pay band after following due process of selection. The appointment of the respondent subsequently on a contractual basis on a fixed salary was inherently arbitrary. 7. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the communication dated 4 March 2014, issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Dehli, addressed to the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, wherein, it has been provided that the selected candidates, including, the respondent applicant be given appointment on consolidated amount at Rs. 9,000/- per month for a period of three months or till the posts are filled up on regular basis. 3 8. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforenoted communication the respondent/applicant came to be appointed on 6 March 2014 on contractual basis instead on adhoc basis on the pay-band as advertised. 9.
Legal Reasoning
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement was neither cancelled nor suspended, rather, it is admitted that the Tribunal acted upon the advertisement and made selections in accordance with the rules. However, while issuing the appointment letter terms and condition stipulated in the advertisement was abruptly altered to the detriment of the original applicant. The action and stand of the petitioner did not find favour with the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/original applicant submits that till date regular stenographer on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission has neither been selected nor appointed. Further, an adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc/contractual employee. 11. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity, accordingly, the impugned order calls for no interference. 12. In the circumstances, it is provided that the petitioner shall be entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal to the original applicant for the period respondent/original applicant performed his duties until 19 June 2020. The arrears of salary to be computed and released to the respondent/original applicant within two months from date. The respondent/original applicant shall be reinstated in service until appointment/selection of the regular 4 candidate on the post of stenographer is made and shall be entitled to all the benefits admissible to an adhoc employee as provided in the advertisement.
Decision
13. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.2.2023 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5