Pinki Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

Shri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for respondents are present.

Matter pertains to Division Bench, which is not available today. This case has been placed before this Single Bench in compliance of directions of Hon’ble Chairman vide order dated 30.8.2022.

Applicant has filed this O.A. to call for relevant records on the basis of which decision was taken to cancel her engagement as GDS on the alleged ground that there were more meritorious candidates. Applicant also prayed to declare that the issue of notification in respect of filling up of vacancy of GDSBPM Panai Kalan caused by disengaging the applicant is illegal as the very termination of the engagement of the applicant has been under challenge before this Tribunal and also requested to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 2.5.2022 (Annexure A-1 to the O.A.) in respect of the post of GDSBPM, Panai Kalan, Unnao issued by respondent No. 2.

Misc. Stay Application No. 1996/2022 in O.A. No. 564/2022 has been moved by the learned counsel for applicant to stay the operation of the order dated 20. 6.2022 in respect of the post of GDS BPM Panai. It is clarified that only short Counter Affidavit to the interim relief has been filed. Objection to the stay application has not been filed.

Earlier, Applicant had filed O.A. No. 499/2022 for direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 15.2.2021 issued by the respondent No. 4 by which the respondent No. 4 had proposed to review the engagement of the applicant and for direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4 by which respondent No. 4 has reviewed and cancelled the engagement of the applicant from the post of GDSBPM, Panai Kalan, District- Unnao.

Applicant was engaged on the post of GDSBPM on 27.11.2013 and vide order dated 24.12.2021, her appointment was cancelled on the ground that applicant has obtained only 67.33 % in the High School Examination and is at 26 position of the merit list whereas there are 25 other candidates who have obtained more marks than the applicant and applicant has been given appointment ignoring the merit position of other candidates. Therefore, her appointment was cancelled by the Director, Postal Services, Kanpur Region, Kanpur vide letter dated 24.12.2021, which is challenged in O.A. No. 499/2022.

O.A. No. 564/2022 has been filed before this Tribunal against the action of the respondents whereby notification has been issued for conducting fresh examination against the post of the applicant which is under challenge in O.A. No. 499/2022 by the applicant herself. It is further argued that O.A. No. 499/2022 has been admitted, therefore, Department cannot proceed for fresh appointment. It is also argued that if the interim relief/ stay is not granted, and declaration of result as well as appointment of the candidates are not stayed, O.A. No. 499/2022 will become infructuous. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the applicant refers to the provision of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as well as documents annexed with the O.A. Hence, he prayed for staying the operation of the order dated 20.6.2022 as well as staying the appointment process. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant placed reliance of two judgments passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.352/2016 (Name Chand Vs. Union of India and others) and in O.A. No. 599/2016 (Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others).

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that after cancellation of the appointment of the applicant, fresh notification dated 2.5.2022 was issued to fill up the post of GDS including the one held by the applicant as GDS BPM Panai Kalan. Learned counsel argued that since the result of the examination has been declared, select list has been published, applicant engagement has been cancelled, granting interim relief to the applicant will cause irreparable loss and injury to the selected candidates. Applicant has no locus standi to challenge the selection process. If interim relief is granted and stay of the selection process is made, the entire selection will become redundant.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

If provision of Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 is taken into consideration in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is clear that on admission of O.A. No. 499/2022, proceedings pending for redressal of grievance before the department concerned shall abate only. O.A. No. 499/2022 is pending for the relief against the cancellation of engagement of the applicant. The present O.A. is filed for quashing the notification dated 2.5.2022. which is separate proceedings to the relief claimed in O.A. No. 499/2022. In pursuance of the notification dated 2.5.2022, selection process has been completed, result has been declared. Only appointment letters are to be issued. If the applicant succeed in O.A. No. 499/2022, certainly he will get his relief claimed in the O.A. No. 499/2022. At this stage, interim relief claimed in the matter cannot be allowed, particularly in view of pendency of O.A. No. 499/2022. Thus, effect and operation of notification dated 2.5.2022 can also not be stayed. Candidates who have been selected and whose result has been declared, will suffer irreparable loss.

As far as interim orders relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant is concerned, in O.A. No.352/2016, the applicant was engaged on the post of GDS/MC, Ajhua Bazar and despite continuous working on the said post, the respondents have issued notification dated 20.2.2016 for engagement on the aforesaid post and this Tribunal vide order dated 15.3.2016, stayed the notification dated 20.2.2016. In O.A. No.599/2016, the applicant was engaged on the post of GDS BPM, Piparpati, Deoria by order dated 29.6.2010 and on the date of the passing of the interim order, he was working on the said post. The applicant had also represented for regularization but instead of giving him regular appointment, the respondents have issued a notification dated 30.1.2016 and corrigendum dated 15.2.2016, by which the respondents had invited applications for the various vacant post in Devaria Commissionerate. In this case, this Tribunal vide order dated 10.5.2016, stayed the operation of the notification dated 30.1.2016 and corrigendum dated 15.2.2016, so far as relates to the post of GDS, BPM, Piparpati Deoria only.

From perusal of the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, it is clear that in both the above OAs, on the date of notification, the applicants were working on the post of GDSMC and GDSBPM, whereas in the instant case, applicant was appointed as GDSBPM and her engagement was cancelled by the department vide order dated 24.12.2021 due to irregularities found in the selection. An O.A. No. 499/2022 is still pending against cancellation of engagement of the applicant. Thereafter, respondents have issued notification dated 2.5.2022 for filling up the various posts of GDS, including the post of applicant and now, in the present case much water has flown. Selection process has been completed, result has been declared, select list has been published. Only appointment letter are to be issued. Hence, the fact of the instant matter is entirely different from the fact of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. Thus, no benefit could be extended to the applicant on the basis of judgments relied upon by her, particularly when both the orders are interim orders, in a given fact and situation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that interim relief claimed at this stage cannot be allowed.

List on 1.12.2022 before Division Bench for further proceeding