Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India Through The ... on 18 December, 2011

CHANDIGARH BENCH



Chandigarh, this the 18th day of November, 2011

CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)

HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM , MEMBER(A)

(I). OA No. 934/CH/10

GURINDER SINGH, aged about 23 years, S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh, Resident of House No. 2403, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

APPLICANT

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI R.K. SHARMA

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, through Secretary, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

4. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operation Circle, UT Secretariat Building, 5th Floor, Room No. 511, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

5. Sh. Joginder Pal, S/o Sh. Rasal Singh, H.No. 432/3, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Presently working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Respondents.

6. Sh. Manpreet Singh Saini, S/o S. Sajjan Singh,H.No. 1021-A, Sector 52-B, Electricity Colony, Chandigarh. Presently working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Respondents.

..RESPONDENTS

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI AMAN CHAUDHARY FOR No.1-4.

MS. SANGITA DHANDA FOR No.5.

SHRI PARVEEN GUPTA FOR No.6.

(II) OA NO. 676-CH of 2010



KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV, aged about 20 years, S/o Sh. Ram Asra Yadav, Resident of House No. 2587, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.

APPLICANT

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI R.K. SHARMA

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, through Secretary, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

4. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operation Circle, UT Secretariat Building, 5th Floor, Room No. 511, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

5. Sh. Joginder Pal, S/o Sh. Rasal Singh, H.No. 432/3, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Presently working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Respondents.

RESPONDENTS

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI AMAN CHAUDHARY FOR 1-4.

MS. SANGITA DHANDA FOR 5.

(III). OA. NO. 534/CH/11

MANPREET SINGH SAINI, s/o S. Sajjan Singh, House No. 1021-A, Sector 52-B, Electricity Colony, Chandigarh. Presently working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Respondents.

.APPLICANT

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA

Versus

1. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator, UT Chandigarh, UT Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, through Secretary, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

4. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operation Circle, UT Secretariat Building, 5th Floor, Room No. 511, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. .RESPONDENTS

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI AMAN CHAUDHARY FOR 1-4.

(IV). OA No. 827/CH/2011

JOGINDER PAL, s/o Sh. Rasal Singh, H.No. 432/3, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh, presently working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with respondents. .APPLICANT

BY ADVOCATE: MS. SANGITA DHANDA

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, through Secretary, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, UT Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

4. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operation Circle, UT Secretariat Building, 5th Floor, Room No. 511, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

BY ADVOCATE: SHRI AMAN CHAUDHARY FOR 1-4.

ORDER



HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-

1. The joint disposal of these OAs is authorized by the inter-se relatability thereof qua the nature of the controversy.

2. The UT Administration invited applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The number of posts for the General, OBC and SC Categories was 6, 5 and 1 respectively. The minimum and maximum age of eligibility, as on 1.1.2009, was indicated to be 18 and 25 respectively. The rule-related relaxation was available to the reserved category and also the in-service candidates.

3. The Respondents No. 5 & 6 namely, Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini respectively and one Devinder Kiran (not impleaded as a party), were successful at the hustings. A wait list of OBC candidates was brought into being. The name of applicant Gurinder Singh appears at S. No. 3 therein. Since Devinder Kiran did not join the appointment. On that account, the appointment came to be offered to the candidate wait-listed at S. No. 1 under the aforesaid category. On that account, applicant Gurinder Singh was brought to the slot No. 2 in the waiting list.

4. Gurinder Singh aforementioned has applied for invalidation of the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as the latter was overage on the cut-off date. Qua Respondent No. 6, namely, Manpreet Singh, the challenge is based upon the averment that he belongs to Saini Caste which is not included in the list of OBCs for UT Chandigarh and he could not be, thus, considered for appointment under the OBC Category. The pure and simple plea raised by the applicant is that with the invalidation of appointment offered to Respondents No. 5 & 6, he would make the grade.

5. In the counter filed in that OA, the Official Respondents have made a precise averment that they have already issued a show-cause notice (Annexures R-1 and R-2 therein) to the Respondents No. 5 & 6 aforementioned to show cause why their appointments should not be cancelled on the pleas urged by the applicant herein. The Respondents aforementioned have yet to respond thereto.

6. Repondent No. 6, too, filed a counter reiterating the validity of his appointment and pleading for rejection of the OA as the applicant had himself participated in the selection process aforementioned. The other Private Respondent did not file a counter.

7. Joginder Pal (aforementioned) has filed an independent OA (No. 827/CH/2011) to obtain the quashment of the show cause notice (Annexure A-2 in that OA). Manpreet Singh (aforementioned) has also filed an OA No. 534/CH/2011 to obtain the quashment of the show cause notice (Annexure A-5 therein), issued to him in the context of the cancellation of the appointment offered to him.

8. Krishan Kumar Yadav, too, filed an OA. No. 676/CH/2010 to obtain the invalidation of the appointment offer made to Private Respondent No. 5, namely, Joginder Pal (arrayed as Respondent in OA. 934 as well). The plea raised by the applicant therein is that Joginder Pal was overage on the cut-off date and could not have, thus, been considered eligible.

9. In the counter filed by the Official Respondents, a plea has been raised that a show cause notice for cancellation of appointment has already been issued to Joginder Pal (aforementioned). Joginder Pal filed an independent counter iterating correctness of the facts therein.

10. It can be safely culled out, from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings raised by the parties in these OAs, that Gurinder Singh and Krishan Kumar Yadav can succeed only if the appointment of Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini could be invalidated. That determination has not yet come about. In fact, a precise plea raised by the Official Respondents is that they have issued show cause notices to Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini aforementioned, who are yet to respond thereto.

11. The above factual scenario shall make it evident that the competent authority, which had issued show cause notices to Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini, is yet to have the response by those appointees. Obviously, it is on consideration of the response only that the competent authority shall be in a position to take a view. Though the Private Respondents aforementioned have indicated their stance in the course of the counters/OAs filed by them, they are yet to independently forward it to the competent authority, in the form of a response to the show cause notices issued to them. The competent authority is yet to apply its mind to the matter. The OAs filed by Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini are, thus, clearly pre-mature. Similarly, in the OAs filed by Gurinder Singh and Krishan Kumar Yadav, a right to consideration shall accrue to them only when the invalidation of the appointments in favour of Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh saini comes about.

12. These four OAs (934/CH/10, 676/CH/10, 534/CH/11 and 827/CH/11) shall, accordingly, stand disposed of as pre-mature. The retention in abeyance of a such like matter is not in the interest of efficacious functioning of public service. The candidate already appointed cannot work fearlessly due to the pendency of a challenge to his appointment. He cannot obviously put his heart and time into functioning on account of the pendency of the challenge to the validity of his appointment. Likewise, the expectant challenge would also anxiously await the outcome of the challenge. It would, thus, be appropriate if Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini respond to the show cause notices within a reasonable time. The competent authority would be well-advised to take a view in the matter within a fortnight of the receipt of the response to the show cause notices from Joginder Pal and Manpreet Singh Saini. Disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be placed in the connected files too.

(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND)

MEMBER(J)

(KHUSHIRAM)

MEMBER(A)

Dated: November 18th, 2011

ND*

1

(OA No. 934-CH of 2010)