AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.H. Zaidi, J.—The present petition was filed by the Petitioner initially for quashing the Impugned order dated 25.11.1992, which is filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It appears that during the pendency of the present petition, Petitioner was relieved from training by means of the order dated 18.4.1994. The Petitioner by means of the amendment application, which was allowed, has challenged the validity of the said order dated 18.4.1994. The Petitioner also prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to permit him to function as Scientific Assistant-B and to pay him salary regularly every month in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 15.7.1992.
It has also been asserted in the writ petition that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Scientific Assistant on 15.7.1992 after appearing in the written examination. Along with him 28 other candidates, only 21 candidates including Petitioner qualified the written test. On 21.4.1992, an interview was held and the Petitioner was selected by the selection committee as Scientific Assistant trainee. After aforesaid selection, the Petitioner completed other formalities as required by the Respondents. It has further been stated that the work and conduct of the Petitioner was quite satisfactory and there was no complaint against him. Unfortunately, Petitioner fell seriously ill, on the account of which he had to take leave for his treatment at medical college, Meerut. When he recovered from ailment, he joined his duties and furnished fitness certificate but the Respondent did not permit the Petitioner to resume his duties and to sign the attendance register. Vide letter dated 31.10.1992, explanation was called for from the Petitioner and he submitted his detailed reply on 7.11.1992 in response to the allegations leveled against him.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that on account of enmity, in the village, he was involved in a criminal case falsely. He further stated that Petitioner has challenged the validity of the F.I.R. in this Court in Writ Petition No. 1351 of 1993 and this Court in the said petition was pleased to direct that the Petitioner shall not be arrested during the investigation of the criminal case. The said criminal case is still being investigated by the police and no charge-sheet has yet been submitted. It was by the order dated 25.11.1992, the traineeship of the Petitioner was terminated by the Joint Administrative Officer, Naraura Branch, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It has also been stated that the order terminating the traineeship of the Petitioner was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to him and without taking into consideration the fact that the arrest of the Petitioner in the criminal case was stayed by the High Court. The Petitioner asserted that according to the terms and conditions of appointment as Scientific Assistant-B. which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the Petitioner was entitled to join the employment after successful completion of the training.
Respondents, on the other hand, filed counter-affidavit and controverter the facts stated In the writ petition. It has been asserted that since the training of the Petitioner has already completed and after completion of training, the Petitioner has been relieved, the present petition has, thus, become in fructuous. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief prayed for by him and that the Respondents are not under the obligation to provide employment to the Petitioner and to appoint him on the post of Scientific Assistant-B. The writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
By means of the order dated 3.2.1993, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 25.11.1992 for a period of three months. It has also been observed In the stay order that the Petitioner will only continue the training but will not be entitled for the appointment on the basis of the order of High Court.
During the pendency of the present petition, Petitioner filed supplementary-affidavit in reply whereof the Respondents have also filed supplementary counter-affidavit. It was stated by the Petitioner that the act of relieving him from service without considering his case for appointment/ absorption as Scientific Assistant-B is wholly arbitrary. In para 9 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated as under:
That in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner completed his training period in March, 1994. However, after completion of the said training the Petitioner was not called for any interview nor has been considered for absorption as Scientific Assistant-B. On the contrary, the Respondent authorities have proceeded to pass the order on 18.4.94 relieving the Petitioner from Nuclear Power Corporation. Narora Atomic Power Station, w.e.f. 18.4.1994. A true copy of the office order dated 18.4.1994 is being enclosed as Annexure SA-4 to this affidavit.
From the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that it was specifically stated that Petitioner was never called for any interview nor has been considered for absorption as Scientific Assistant-B. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, Respondents have stated as under:
That the contents of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the supplementary affidavit are misleading and Incorrect and are not admitted as stated. The correct facts are that by means of the interim stay order dated 3.2.93, the impugned order terminating the traineeship of the Petitioner was stayed for a period of three months only. Thereafter, the stay application for extension of the Interim order came up before the Hon''ble Mr. Justice M. Katju but the extension of stay was declined by him on 5.5.1993. The Respondent Corporation was under no obligation or duty to continue the training of the Petitioner as the interim stay order had already expired but as a gesture of goodwill, continued the training of the Petitioner till its completion in March. 1994. It is categorically stated that although the Petitioner completed his training, it is not correct to say that he completed his training successfully. It is stated that he was not found to be suitable and fit for giving regular employment by the corporation. As such, he had to be relieved. it may also be pointed out that the appointment letter dated 15.7.1992 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) clearly states that the Petitioner would have no right to employment after completion of training nor would the Respondent corporation be under any obligation to employ the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner has no legal right whatsoever to be employed by the corporation. It may also be pointed out that the total period of training was 1-1/2 years in which the Petitioner was absent for a long period without sanction of leave. However, the Respondent corporation extended the period of his training to cover up even the period when the Petitioner was unauthorized absent, with a view to give him all reasonable opportunity to complete his training. As stated above, after the completion of his training, the concerned officers made an assessment of his overall performance and were of the opinion that he Is not fit for being offered employment in the Corporation.
In the aforesaid paragraph, the fact that the Petitioner was not called for the Interview has not been denied. It has, however, been stated that he was not found fit and suitable for giving regular employment by the corporation.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on para 9 of the Annexure I which contains the terms and conditions of traineeship in Narora Power Corporation of India. The said terms and conditions read as under:
On successful completion of the training, you may be offered an employment in a suitable scale of pay of the Corporation depending upon availability of vacancies, your suitability, performance during your training and final assessment and you are also liable to be posted anywhere in India.
It has been contended that although in the terms and conditions referred to above, no guarantee has been given by the Respondents to provide employment but they have clearly and unequivocally stated that'' after successful completion of training it was obligatory upon the Respondent to consider him for his appointment on a suitable post and In a suitable scale of pay. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in his submission that it was obligatory upon the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for his appointment on a suitable post. It is apparent from the letter dated 20.12.1993 Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit that 13 diploma holders trainees of Petitioner''s batch were called for Interview but regarding the Petitioner it was observed as under:
Shri Rajendra Singh, (CC No. 2445) will be completing his training period in March, 1994 and will be Interviewed separately.
As stated above in spite of the aforesaid assurance given, the Petitioner was never called for Interview and his case was never considered by the Respondents for the post In question.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I have no option but to hold that the Respondents have acted wholly arbitrarily in relieving the Petitioner from service without considering him for appointment on suitable post.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and Is allowed with costs. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for his appointment on the post of Scientific Assistant-B In accordance with law within a period of two months from today and appoint him on the post In question if he is found fit for appointment. The Petitioner will be considered In the same manner as his batch mates have been considered.