AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satya Poot Mehrotra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001, shown at Serial No. 2 above, has been filed by the petitioner, Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Singh, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 12.4.2001 (Annexure No. 1 to the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of Original Application No. 1852 of 1993 filed by the petitioner regarding termination of the services of the petitioner.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001, shown at Serial No. 1 above, has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 12.4.2001 (Annexure No. 1 to the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of Original Application No. 253 of 1993 filed by the petitioner in regard to refusal to permit the petitioner to cross Efficiency Bar.
As the aforesaid Original Applications filed by the petitioner have been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal by a common order dated 12.4.2001 and the common questions of fact and law are involved in the aforementioned two Writ Petitions; the aforementioned two Writ Petitions are being disposed of together by this Court by a common judgment.
It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Medical Officer in 1973, and was posted as such in the Ordnance Factory, Kanpur. The petitioner continued in service till her services were terminated on 26.6.1980. The petitioner '': filed a Suit in the Court of City Munsif, Kanpur against her termination order. The said Suit was decreed, and the petitioner was reinstated by the order dated 8.9.1986 with effect from 23.3.1986.
The petitioner was again removed from service on 18.9.1986 whereupon the petitioner filed an Original Application being Original Application No. 25 of 1987.
By the order dated 14.3.1991, the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the termination order dated 18.9.1986 with direction to treat the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. Further direction was given to the Union Public Service. Commission to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.
Following the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.3.1991, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 14.10.1991 as Junior -Medical Officer in the Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjhanpur.
In view of the above; directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the said order 14.3.1991, the petitioner was asked to appear in the Written Examination on 13.8.1991 for the purpose of regularization. However, the petitioner did not appear in the said Examination but represented against it by her letter. At the same time, the petitioner moved an. Application before the-Central Administrative Tribunal seeking clarification of the said order dated 14.3.1991. The Central Administrative Tribunal clarified that the Written Examination and Interview would not be necessary for regularization, and the regularization-exercise was directed to be completed on the basis of ACRs of the petitioner by the Union Public Service Commission.
Pursuant to the above clarification given by the, Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union Public Service Commission assessed the ACRs. of the petitioner and found her unfit for regularization. Copy of the Communication sent by the Union Public Service Commission in this regard has been filed a;. Annexure No. 8 to the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001.
In view of the consideration of the case of regularization of the petitioner by the Union Public Service Commission and finding her not suitable for regularization, the President of India passed an order ''dated 29.10.1993 terminating services of the petitioner and directing for one month''s pay and other allowances in lieu of one month''s notice. Copy of the said, order dated 29.10.1993 has been filed Annexure No. 8 to the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001.
Thereupon, the petitioner filed the'' aforesaid Original Application No. 1852 of 1993.
It may be mentioned that in the year 1989, the case of the petitioner for crossing Efficiency Bar was considered. However, on 27.10.1989, the petitioner was found not fit for crossing the-Efficiency Bar. Copy of-the said order dated 27.10.1989 has been filed as Annexure. No. 10 to the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No: 25900 of 2001.
Against the said order dated 27.10.1989 refusing to permit the petitioner to cross Efficiency Bar, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application No. 253 of 1993.
As noted above, by the order dated 12.4.2001, both the aforesaid Original Applications filed by the petitioner were decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid Original Applications filed by the petitioner.
We have heard Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss Mahima Maurya appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record.
Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner after the petitioner had put-in almost 20 years of service and treating her to be temporary employee, was illegal, and the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner in this regard. It is further submitted by Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the long service put-in by the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to regularization in service, and the order for termination of her services treating her to be temporary employee was illegal.
Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:
Purshottam Singh Vs. Collector and Others,
Shamshad Ahmad and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2000 (85) FLR 592 (All).
M. Lingamma v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others 2000 (85) FLR 545 (APHC).
Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001 filed by the petitioner in respect of the termination of the services of the petitioner deserves to be allowed, and the order dated 12.4.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is liable to be quashed.
Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, has fairly stated that the order impugned in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001 was in respect of refusal to cross Efficiency Bar, and the fate of the said Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001 depends upon the decision in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 25901 of 2001. He further states that in case of failure of the aforesaid Writ Petition 25901 of 2001 filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001 would be rendered infructuous.
Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the subject-matter of the present-Writ Petition is not termination simplicitor. In the present case, the case of the petitioner for regularization was considered pursuant to the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was only when the petitioner was found not suitable for regularization, the services of the petitioner were terminated.
Let us consider the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001 filed by the petitioner in respect of the termination of the petitioner from service.
From the narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner has not at any stage claimed that her appointment in the year 1973 was made after following the procedure provided under the relevant Rules, and the same was a regular appointment. The petitioner has throughout claimed that in view of her continuance in service for long period, her services should be regularized. The Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 14.3.1991 passed in the aforesaid Original Application No. 25 of 1987 directed for reinstatement of the petitioner after quashing the termination order dated 18.9.1986, and further directed that the Union Public Service Commission would consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. When the petitioner was required to appear in the Written Examination pursuant to the direction'' given in the said order dated 14.3.1991, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for clarification. The Central Administrative Tribunal clarified that the Written Examination and Interview would not be necessary for regularization and the regularization-exercise would be completed on the basis of ACRs of the petitioner by the Union Public Service Commission.
In view of the said clarification by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union Public Service Commission considered the ACRs of the petitioner and found her not suitable for regularization. Copy of the Communication of the Union Public Service Commission in this regard, as noted above, has been filed Annexure No. 8 to the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001.
As the petitioner was not found suitable for regularization on the basis of the ACRs of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the President of India by the order dated 29.10.1993.
The petitioner in her Original Application, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 29.10.1993 and for directing the respondents to produce the ACRs'' file before the Central Administrative Tribunal in order to determine the correctness of the said order dated 29.10.1993. ACRs of the petitioner were produced before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the Central Administrative Tribunal, after going through the record concluded in its order dated 12.4.2001 as under:
After going through the records and the A.CRs file placed before us, we are convinced that the ACRs of the applicant for the relevant period when she was in actual service only were written and perused by the U.P.S.C. The recommendations were given after perusal of her records. It is not a fact as alleged by the applicant that adverse were not communicated. The adverse entries which are cognisable as per the A.C.R. records, were communicated to her. In the result, we find no justiable reasons to interfere with the order dated 29.10.1993. Both the O.As fail on merits, therefore, dismissed.
It will, thus, be seen that the case of the petitioner for regularization was considered by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of the ACRs of the petitioner, and after considering the ACRs of the petitioner, the Union Public Service Commission found her not suitable for regularization. The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the ACRs produced before it, and agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Union Public Service Commission.
It will, thus, be noticed that the present case of the petitioner was not a case of termination simplicitor. The case of the petitioner was considered for regularization, and thereafter, the President of India terminated the services of the petitioner by the order dated 29.10.1993 and directed for payment of one month''s pay and other allowances in lieu of one month''s notice.
We may consider here the decisions relied upon by Sr K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In Purshottam case (supra), the petitioner was working as peon on Daily Wage Basis in the Office of Mining Officer, Collectorate, Hamirpur, and after five years, the petitioner in the said case was disengaged while other persons engaged on Daily Wage Basis in the Office, were still working. In the circumstances, this Court directed that the petitioner in the said case be allowed to work, and his case for regularization be considered.
In the present case, as noted above, the case of the petitioner for regularization was considered and the petitioner was not found suitable for regularization. The facts of Purshottam case (supra) are thus distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
In Shamshad Ahmad case (supra), the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis as Chowkidar in the year 1981-82. The services of the petitioners, were terminated in the year 1986 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. In the circumstances, the termination orders of the services of the petitioners were set-aside and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated, and regularised in services.
In the present case, as noted earlier, the case of the petitioner was considered for regularization on the basis of her ACRs. by the Union Public Service Commission, and the Union Public Service Commission found her not suitable for regularization. In consequence, the services of the petitioner Were terminated. Thus, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of Shamshad case (supra).
3, In M. Lingamma case (supra), the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on 11.8.1980. The Management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation- without issuing any notice prevented the petitioner from discharging her duty. The petitioner in the said case filed a Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was disposed of on 29.4.1994 directing the Management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to consider her case for regularization. The Management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation by the order dated 1.9.1998 declined to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the petitioner lacked necessary qualification for the said post.
Thereupon, the petitioner in the said case filed Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner:
The decision given in M. Lingamma case (supra) is not evidently applicable to the facts of the present case where the case of the petitioner for regularization was considered by the Union Public Service Commission, and the petitioner was not found suitable for regularization.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the President of India dated 29.10.1993 directing termination of the services of the petitioner after the petitioner was not found suitable for regularization.
Nothing has been brought on record to show that the decision of the Union Public Service Commission, Which was confirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 12.4.2001, suffers from any illegality or infirmity.
We agree with the observations made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in paragraph No; 7 in the order dated 12.4.2001, as quoted above.
The aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001 filed by the petitioner thus lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Coming now to the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001, Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as noted above, has fairly stated that in case of failure of the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001, the said Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001 would be rendered infructuous.
In view of the above, the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001 is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous.
In view of above discussion, the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2001 is dismissed.
In consequence, the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25900 of 2001 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.