Sheel Pragy vs Union Of India & Ors

Anand Mathur, Member (A)

Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-

1.1 Pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2019 issued by the respondents inviting applications for filling up of various posts including 160 posts of District Youth Coordinator [DYC], the applicant applied online for the said post on 21.07.2019. In the result of online written examination held on 08.09.2019, applicant’s name figured at serial no.41 in the list of qualified and shortlisted candidates. He was also called for personal interview conducted on 11.12.2019.

1.2 Based on passing of online written examination and personal interview, final result was declared by the respondents on 28.12.2019 and applicant’s name was shown at serial no.15 in the waiting list of 22 selected DYCs. After clearing the wait list, applicant was selected and he was offered provisional appointment as DYC on 10.07.2020.

1.3 Though the applicant accepted the offer of appointment as DYC on 23.07.2020, he intimated the respondents that since he was working with SSB, it would take 2-3 months for him to get relieved. Vide order dated 24.07.2020 acceding to the request of the applicant, the respondents asked him to join NYKS Sindhudurg, Maharashtra on or before 10.08.2020. However, the applicant sought further extension of two months from 10.08.2020 to join the post in question. Meanwhile, the applicant tendered his technical resignation from SSB on 30.07.2020 and requested the respondents on 03.08.2020 through mail followed by a reminder to grant two months more time enabling him to join the post. The respondents vide mail dated 17.08.2020, accepted the request of the applicant and granted extension till 10.10.2020 to join at NYKS, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra.

1.4 When the applicant’s technical resignation was not acceded to by the MHA vide letter dated 01.10.2020 on technical grounds, he again represented to the respondents seeking one more month’s extension on the ground that he would tender fresh resignation on personal grounds. The aforesaid request of the applicant was rejected by the respondents on 19.10.2020.

1.5 Despite rejection of his request for extension of time, the applicant preferred yet another representation dated 21.10.2020 to the respondents for extension of one month on humanitarian grounds stating therein that he had submitted a bond of Rs.4.17 lakh on 14.10.2020 to the SSB towards training charges. The applicant was relieved from duties on 05.11.2020 (AN) without any pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 28 of SSB Rules, 2009.

1.6 The applicant has stated that in terms of draft seniority list of DYC as on 24.05.2022, vacancies of DYC are still there, as after 31.05.2019 no further recruitment has been held for the said post. Moreover, the applicant should have been granted six months’ extension from the date of issue of original offer of appointment in terms of DOP&T OM dated 09.08.2015.

1.7 It is stated that the respondents, ignoring DOP&T OM dated 09.08.1995 on the subject, rejected applicant’s request for further extension to join NYKS as DYC vide mail dated 19.10.2020, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“With regard to the above, we regret to inform you that your request for further extension to join NYKS as DYC has not been approved by the Appointing Authority.”

1.8 Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-

“i) To set aside and quash the impugned order/leter dated 19.10.2020.

ii) To direct the respondents to appoint the applicant for the post of District Youth Coordinator.

iii) To direct the respondents to allow the applicant for joining the duty as District Youth Coordinator forthwith in pursuance of appointment letter dated 10.07.2020.

iv) To direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefit like seniority from the date of his junior and pay and allowances to the applicant.”

Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA. They have stated that applicant was selected and offer of appointment to the post of DYC was issued to him on 10.07.2020 following posting order dated 24.07.2020 directing him to join at NYKS, Sindhudurg on or before 10.08.2020.

2.1 The applicant sought extension of two months vide request letter dated 24.07.2020, which was allowed and he was asked to join the post on or before 10.10.2020. Again, the applicant sought extension of one month vide mail dated 01.10.2020, which was not allowed vide communication dated 19.10.2020.

2.2 They have further stated that the applicant had not applied for the post under reference through proper channel and, therefore, his resignation was not considered as technical resignation. If a government servant applies before joining the government service, he/she is required to intimate about such application immediately to his/her employer, but the applicant did not do so. Therefore, he had to tender normal resignation to SSB, which was accepted and he was relieved from duties on 05.11.2020. However, after being relieved and having his request for further extension beyond 10.10.2020 by the respondents, the applicant kept silent and approached this Tribunal by way of instant OA, by that time life of the panel already stood expired. Hence, applicant’s case is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed out-rightly.

The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents opposing the contentions of the respondents and re-asserting the averments made by him in the OA. He has added that as per DOP&T OM dated 09.18.1995, the respondents have granted six months’ extension to other similarly candidates namely Mahesh Singh Shekhawat (serial no.299), Dinesh Kumar Jangid (serial no.297), Ms. Snegdha Singh (serial no.251) and Atul Shama (serial no.244) whereas the applicant has been discriminated for the aforesaid benefit.

We have heard Sh. T.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the DOP&T OM dated 09.08.1995.

4.1 Perusal of pleadings available on record reveals that after selection for the post of DYC, the applicant was offered appointment on 10.07.2020, and subsequently posting order was also issued on 24.07.2020 directing him to join at NYK Sindhudurg on or before 10.08.2020. It is clear that applicant’s request for two months’ extension was also accepted and he was allowed to join the post at NYKS, Sindhudurg on or before 10.10.2020. However, applicant’s further request for extension was declined.

4.2. Insofar as DOP&T OM dated 09.08.1995 is concerned, it has been categorically mentioned therein that extension beyond three months should not be granted liberally. It is amply clear that the applicant had already been granted two extensions totalling three months’ time from the date of offer of appointment i.e. 10.07.2020 till 10.10.2020. However, extension of time for a maximum period of six months as per DOP&T OM (supra) is the discretion of the employer/respondents. Hence, the applicant has no indefeasible right of extension for six months.

4.3 Insofar as extension of six months given to similarly situated candidates is concerned, it is noticed that all the four candidate, quoted by the applicant, had joined their respective postings in June, 2020 itself, i.e., well before expiry of life of the panel.

4.4 It is amply clear that applicant, who was offered appointment on 10.07.2020, was given extension till 10.08.2020 in the first place, on his second request, it was further extended by two months till 10.10.2020, and thereafter his third request was rejected by the respondents.

The whole issue has arisen because of shortcomings on part of the applicant himself whose technical resignation took more time because he had not followed the procedure prescribed for the same. Despite giving two extensions for joining, the applicant still could not get relieved and after getting relieved on 05.11.2020, there is nothing on record to show that he had approached the respondents for joining. The language of DOP&T OM (supra) also states that extension beyond three months should not be given liberally.

5.1 Coupled with the fact that the currency of the panel had expired, we do not find any merit in the clam of the applicant. The instant OA is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.