Full Judgment
M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
“(a)That Order dt. 28.04.2010, of the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Aligarh, in regard to suspension of process of appointment, resulting in metting discriminatory treatment of appointment of the applicant, may kindly be ordered to be set-aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to order appointment of applicant in the post of compounder for which he is held selected without any further delay within a reasonable time bound period.
(c) That the respondents be imposed exemplary costs for denying appointment to the applicant treating him at discriminatory footing with other categories of selected employees, who were given retrospective appointments immediately after their selections.
(d) Allow any other and further relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal, may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in order to safe guard the interests of justice.
and
(c) Allow costs of this Application.”
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Govt. of India Press, Aligarh issued an advertisement, which was published in the Employment News for the week 24-30.11.2007 for various categories of posts, including the post of Compounder, to which category the applicant applied. He qualified the written test and thereafter appeared in the interview. As per the result declared the applicant was selected against the post of Compounder. However, he was not given offer of appointment whereas the others belonging to different categories were issued appointment orders. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 28.4.2010 the applicant was informed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press that the process of direct recruitment was suspended, therefore, the process of appointment is held pending. It is this order, which is under challenge in this OA. The challenge has been made on the ground that the persons similarly situated have been given appointment and they were allowed to join, whereas the applicant, who is similarly circumstanced, has not been permitted to join the duties.
3. Notice of this application was given to the respondents, who have filed their reply affidavit, wherein it has been stated that a complaint was received by the respondents alleging large scale irregularities in the recruitment process. On 3.4.2008 a decision was taken at the level of Ministry to stall the process of recruitment by selecting the candidates till the investigation was complete. It was further stated that except those, who had already joined, others were not allowed to join duties. This decision was conveyed vide letter dated 4.4.2008 to the concerned Office stating that the process of recruitment/filling up of the vacant posts is hereby suspended forthwith.
4. The respondent have also placed on record the copy of the order dated 13.12.2010 (page 114 of the paper book) whereby the Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, who has looked into the complaint, has pointed out many irregularities in the selection process. It has further been mentioned in the said letter that the matter has been examined in entirety and was also discussed in a meeting taken by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development with official from Ministry of Law and it has been decided that the lists of selected candidates cannot be acted upon due to inherent defects. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
5. Matter was heard from time to time and the same was adjourned, as this Tribunal was apprised that the matter regarding selection conducted vide the impugned advertisement is pending before the High Court, as the respondents have challenged various orders of this Tribunal where the persons, who were not permitted to join duties after the decision was taken on 3.4.2008, have obtained orders from this Tribunal wherein the direction was given to the respondents to give appointment to the applicants therein. The main reason weighed with the Tribunal in granting relief was that since many others are allowed to join and they are working, fate of the applicants therein would be the same as those persons and they would sink or swim with them. They cannot be left in the lurch and singled out for discriminatory treatment by not allowing them to join the post on the ground of irregularity in the process of selection, while others have been allowed to join in similar circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for applicant has brought to our notice the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Union of India and others v. Dharam Vir Singh (WP (C) No.4745/2011 with two connected writ petitions) decided on 7.3.2012 whereby the judgment of this Tribunal has been set aside and substituted with the following directions:-
“13. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law and the factual position emerging from the records, we are of the view that directions given by the tribunal are unsustainable. We, thus, set aside the impugned orders directing appointment of the respondents in these writ petitions allowing these writ petitions. At the same time, we substitute the order of the tribunal with the following directions:
“Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from the date of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely, report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be taken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if for some reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and to continue with the existing appointments then the respondents herein shall also be appointed.”
14. We may make it clear that we have not touched upon the question as to whether findings of the CVO that the selection process is vitiated because of irregularities stated therein is correct or not. It is not even WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 and 5962/2011 necessary to do so as all those who are appointed are not before us and we cannot take any view in the matter in their absence. Therefore, needless to mention, in case the petitioners decide to scrap the selection process and the services of those appointed are terminated, they shall be within their right to challenge the action of the Government on its own merits and as per law.
15. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.”
7. Thus, in the light of the directions given by the High Court of Delhi in Dharam Vir Singh’s case (supra), relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove, we are of the view that the applicant is also entitled to the same reliefs.
8. Accordingly, the present OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the directions given by the High Court in Dharam Vir Singh’s case (supra). No costs.