Phool Chandra vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Heard Sri Siddhartha Varma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.3.2003 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad rejecting the Review application filed by the petitioner to review the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 29.4.2002 passed in O.S. No. 660 of 2000.

The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are:

The petitioner''s name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange, Allahabad for seasonal appointment of Anti Malaria Laskar to appear on 17.4.2000. The names of 100 candidates were forwarded by the Employment Officer to appear on 17.4.2000. Only 9 candidates appeared in the interview on 17.4.2000, out of which petitioner was found eligible and other 8 persons were neither found eligible nor interested to work. The letter was written to the Employment Officer to forward more names to appear on 17.5.2000. In subsequent interview which actually took place on 29.5.2000 the petitioner did not appear and the respondent No. 4 to 8 were selected as Anti Malaria Laskar (seasonal). The post of Anti Malaria Laskar (seasonal) are filled every year for the period from 1st June, 2000 to 30th November, 2000. The petitioner thereafter challenging the selection of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Central Administrative Tribunal, rejected the O.A. taking the view that although in 17.4.2000''s interview petitioner was found eligible but there being two candidates who appeared after the interview in practical work more names were asked for interview from employment exchange to sponsor and on the next date i.e. on 29.5.2000 the petitioner did not appear hence selection was made of the respondents No. 4 to 8.

After the judgment of the Tribunal rejecting O.A. the review application was filed which too was rejected on 25.5.2003. Both these orders have been challenged in the writ petition.

Shri Siddhartha Varma, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that petitioner having been found eligible in the first interview held on 17.4.2000 he was entitled for selection. He further submits that subsequently names were asked by the Employment Officer only for 4 post which clearly meant that the petitioner was finally selected. He submits that the petitioner did not receive any information for appearing in the next interview on 29.5.2000 hence his claim cannot be rejected.

Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 referring to Annexure CA-1 and 2 of the counter affidavit submitted that since in pursuance of interview held on 17.4.2000 only two candidates appeared for practical work hence process was not completed. Neither the petitioner was communicated of his selection nor he was issued any appointment letter. He submits that in subsequent interview which was held on 29.5.2000 neither the petitioner could appear nor he was eligible since by that time he became over age. He submits that there was selection of respondent No. 4 to 8. He further submits that the selection in question was only seasonal selection for the period from 1.6.2000 to 30.11.2000, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is true that in the first interview held on 17.4.2000 petitioner along with other 8 candidates appeared and he was found eligible. The petitioner who was found eligible on 17.4.2000 and another person who was found eligible were called for practical work. From proceeding Annexure CA-1 dated 8.5.2000 it is clear that a request was made for sponsoring some more candidates, it is clear that although for 5 posts of Anti Malaria Laskar (seasonal), the process took place on 17.4.2000, but out of 100 candidates only 9 candidates appeared on 17.4.2000. On 19.4.200 and 20.4.2000 they were called for practical work, and only two had appeared. Proceeding further state that interview of the above could not be completed. From proceeding Annexure CA-1 it is clear that the proceeding which was initiated on 17.4.200 could not be finalised nor any selection was finalised. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was selected does not find support from any material. Neither the result was declared against one post nor communication was issued to the petitioner. It is not disputed that subsequent names were called for on 29.5.2000. Several candidates appeared and out of them 5 persons were selected as Anti Malaria Laskar (seasonal). In subsequent interview petitioner did not appear which is not disputed. In the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that at the time of second interview on 29.5.2000 the petitioner had become over age which fact is mentioned in paragraph 13. The selection which took place on 17.4.2000 did not culminate into selection nor any result was declared nor any appointment letter was issued. We are of the view that Tribunal taking correct view of the matter has rejected the O.A. filed by the petitioner. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as the order rejecting the Review application. Writ petition is dismissed.