The Union of India and Others vs N. Nagesh

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No. 385/2009 is called in question in this writ petition.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to appoint the respondent against the vacancy in which he has been selected within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order.

The records reveal that the respondent herein submitted his application pursuant to the notification dated 5.8.2005 issued by the petitioners herein for appointment to fill-up Group - ''D'' posts for the year 2005-06 against Scouts and Guides quota. The written test and interview was conducted by the petitioners on 27.3.2006 and the same was attended by the candidates including the respondent. The respondent being the ''Rastrapathi Awardee'' both in Scouts and Guides, was selected in as much as selection committee found him fit for selection. The name of the respondent was recommended for selection to the Competent Authority by including him in the panel. The Competent Authority also in no way found the respondent unfit for selection. The last date for completion of formalities of the selection process was 31.3.2006. However, the petitioners could not finalise the selection before 31.3.2006 for Group ''D'' post for the year 2005-06 against the Scouts and Guides quota in as much as the Officer concerned was on leave or out of station and next higher Officer did not choose to take decision in the matter.

In view of the Railway Board Direction the quota for selection to the year 2005-2006 would lapse during the respective year and as such quota would not be brought forward after 31.3.2006. Since the appointment order in respect of respondent No. 1 was not issued prior to 31.3.2006, the petitioners - South Western Railways contend that the quota for the year 2005-2006 for recruitment of Group ''D'' against the Scouts and Guides Quota had lapsed. Consequently, though the respondent was selected, was not given appointment order, that too, without any fault of him.

Being aggrieved by such action of the petitioners, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 385/2009 which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has secured the original records maintained by the Department and has satisfied itself that the delay was due to the lapse on the part of the officials in the Department and that therefore, the respondent should not be made to suffer without any fault of him.

The file maintained by the petitioners on the subject discloses that recruitment to Group ''D'' posts for the year 2005-2006 was processed and the selection process was completed on 27.3.2006. However, the selection committee recommendations have not been put up through the Competent Authority till 6.11.2006. It is clear from the records that the written test was conducted on 27.3.2006 and viva-voce was also conducted on the same day and the entire file was submitted to the next higher authority. The papers were placed before the competent authority on 6.11.2006 and the records were perused by DRM on 7.11.2006, the DRM instead of taking action on 7.11.2006 has marked the file to the ADRM. On 16.11.2006, the Additional Deputy Railway Manager did not proceed to take any decision in the matter. On the other hand, by putting up a note on the said day he returned the file back to the Divisional Personal Officer with certain remarks against the Divisional Railway Manager. Ultimately the file did not end up in any result. On the other hand, the file was transmitted from one Officer to the other Officer and all such Officers have refused to take any decision in the matter. Ultimately it is made known to the respondent by the Department that decision could not be taken within 31.3.2006 i.e., the last date prescribed for completion of the formalities for appointment of candidates to Group ''D'' posts in Scouts and Guides Quota.

Admittedly the respondent was not at all at fault. He appeared for written test as well as viva-voce examination on 27.3.2006, on which day, he was selected. Nothing more could have been done by the respondent from 27.3.2006 onwards. On the other hand, it was the duty of the concerned authorities to announce the order of appointment. But the authorities have failed to do so prior to 31.3.2006 since the concerned Officer was on leave and the file passed on from one Officer to another Officer without taking any decision in the matter. There cannot be any dispute that on account of lapse of the Government, the respondent cannot be made to suffer. The petitioners cannot take undue advantage of the lethargy on the part of its authorities. Such attitude cannot be made a ground to conclude against the interest of the respondent who has sought for appointment. The petitioners should not be allowed to take advantage of their own fault. In view of the same, the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the respondent shall be appointed against the vacancy for which he has been selected. Hence no interference is called for, petition fails and the same stands dismissed.