Anurag Krishna Shukla vs All India Institute Of Medical Science Rishikesh Through Executive Director Virbhadra Road, Rishikesh Uttarakhand-249203, India

Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“(a) Set aside and quash the recruitment advertisement no. 2018/226 dated 01.09.2018 for the post of Senior Programmer (analyst) and subsequent Re-open notice dated 13.09.2023 published by the Respondent Institute.

(b) Direct the respondent to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Senior Programmer (Analyst) in terms of AIIMS Rishikesh Recruitment Rules for Non-teaching staff.

(c) Or in the alternative direct the Respondent Institute to consider the candidature of the Applicant before completing the process of recruitment under the impugned advertisement and Re-open notice.”

We noticed that vide record of proceedings dated 12.10.2023, this Tribunal passed the following order:

“The matter has been taken up specially today on account of a mention made yesterday by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has pointed out a minor typographical/clerical error which has crept in order dated 03.10.2023. It was directed that the matter is to be listed before the Registrar's Court for completion of pleadings on 01.12.2023 and for consideration of interim relief on 17.10.2023. However, the dates have been inadvertently reversed.

The order dated 03.10.2023 be modified as under:-

List for consideration of interim relief on 17.10.2023.

List before the Registrar's Court for completion of pleadings on 01.12.2023.

The complete order would read as under:-

" The applicant by virtue of the present OA places a challenge upon vacancy notice issued by AIIMS for various posts including the post of Senior Programmer.

The case of the applicant as explained by his learned counsel is that the applicant is already working as a Programmer and is fully eligible for promotion to the said post. In case the respondents resort to filling up the post by way of direct recruitment, the right of the applicant for consideration of the promotion, shall be adversely affected.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Four week’s time is granted to the respondents to file reply. Two weeks’ time thereafter is granted to the applicant to file rejoinder.

List before Registrar for completion of pleadings on 01.12.2023.

Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant presses for consideration of the applicant’s prayer for interim relief as set forth in para 9 of the OA.

Issue separate notice to the respondents on the applicant’s prayer for interim relief.

The respondents may file a short reply or in the alternative obtain appropriate instructions.

List for consideration of interim relief on 17.10.2023."

Now, the present matter is listed for interim direction.

Mr. P.K. Rai, learned proxy counsel appears for Mr. D.S. Shukla and submits that the arguing counsel, who has been assigned the brief, is not able to reach the Circuit Bench today and will be available tomorrow, i.e. on 18.10.2023.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently opposes grant of adjournment on the ground that the matter was specifically placed for interim direction today and the respondents deliberately and with mala fide intention are avoiding the process of court wherein interim relief is sought.

At this stage, we deem it appropriate and, with the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the proxy counsel for the respondents, the present matter is taken up for disposal, on a limited prayer of the applicant that his representations dated 15.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 be disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order by the Competent Authority in the respondents. He would further stress that till such disposal of the representations, the selection process pursuant to the impugned Advertisement may not be finalised.

Taking note of the limited prayer as mentioned hereinabove, we observe that the present O.A. can be disposed of by directing the respondents/Competent Authority to dispose of the representations dated 15.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is also highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing that pursuant to this Advertisement, as a matter of abundant caution, the applicant has already applied for the post of Senior Programmer on direct recruitment basis as the rule contemplates the filling up of vacancy by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation.

It is not a matter of dispute that the applicant is working as a Programmer and his claim per se his representation is whether he can be allowed to participate in the selection process as a promotional candidate by treating as a promotional post rather than direct recruitment and, as such, we refrain from passing any comment on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, we dispose of the O.A. by directing the respondents/Competent Authority to dispose of the representations dated 15.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the principles of natural justice shall be followed. We make it clear that we have not stalled the recruitment process which has been initiated. However, till the disposal of the aforesaid representations, the results of the recruitment process shall not be finalised by the Competent Authority. We further clarify that we have not entertained the merits of the case.

With the above observations, the O.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.