Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34462 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Beena Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,N C Tripathi
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.5.2016 (annexure no.1) to the writ petition.
(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.11.2013 (annexure-7) to the writ petition.
(c) Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result for the post of F.W.E.E. held in the year 2013 by the respondent no.4 after due approval of the respondent no.2 and to follow the consequence thereof by issuing appointment letter to the selected candidate in accordance with law.
(d) to issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(e) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitions of all the petitioners holding that respondent no.4 had inadvertently mentioned therein the pay-scale of the said post. Even before the notification dated 1.1.2014, a civil post carrying Grade pay of Rs. 2800/- was classified as Group – C post and a civil post carrying grade pay of Rs. 4600/- was classified as a Group – B post and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and the contention of the petitioner that the revision/amendment of the Recruitment Rules being prospective in its application and the department did not have the power to recruit Group – B post. It was Staff Selection Commission, which was the recruiting agency to make recruitment on Group B posts. It was this confusion which the Tribunal felt that the petitioner could not be intimated the outcome of the selection procedure and ought to issue offer of appointment. The petitioner has broadened the scope of this petition.
4. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11.5.2016 is bad in the eye of law and has prayed for a mandamus so as to declare the result for the post of FWEE. The Commission, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, had not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or the other candidates, who had participated in the selection process. It is submitted that respondent no.4 could not have cancelled the examination which was held by them on such flimsy ground. The selection was complete and the approval had to be given by respondent no.2. Just because the pay scales were different, such a drastic action should not have been taken. Unfortunately, though we have full sympathy for the petitioner, the selection results were not declared for the reasons mentioned in the reply filed by the respondent before this Court as well as before the Tribunal. While dismissing this appeal, we deprecate this kind of wasting money of the public exchequer due to inadvertence of the officers, who conduct exam and thereafter Director General, Medical Services, holds back the result. We hope that in future such things would not occur. The Commandant – respondent no.4 had issued advertisement, the logic should have been not to cancel it. If they wanted to cancel it then it should be before the examination is conducted.
5. The Tribunal ought not to have gone beyond the said prayer is the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted that just because Pay Commission’s recommendation had come into force, the entire list could not have been disturbed. The concern of the petitioner was to know whether the petitioner had been selected or not. The Tribunal, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, has ventured to decide on merits which requires interference by this Court. Delving in the merits of the matter was not within the domain of the Tribunal. Whether the selection was based on the new rules or not.
6. The petitioner’s petition and the prayer was duly answered before the Tribunal. Relevant portion thereof is reproduced herein below:-
“As the post of FWEE was already placed in PB-2: Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- with effect from 1.1.2006, and all civil post carrying PB-2: Rs.9300 – 34800 + Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- were classified as Group ‘B’ posts before coming into force of the notification dated 1.1.2014,ibid, and the respondent – department did not have the power to make recruitment to Group ‘B’ posts, the advertisement issued by respondent no.4 on 7.5.2013 for filling up the post of FWEE and the selection process initiated pursuant thereto stood vitiated. Thus, there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondent – department cancelling the entire recruitment process. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the prayer made by the applicant in the O.A to issue a direction to the respondent – department to initiate the outcome of the selection process and to issue offer of appointment to her.”
7. It means that prayer of the petitioner and outcome of the recruitment made in respect of the notification for the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator was replied to namely that the same recruitment and selection was cancelled. Thus, it was implied that the petitioner was not selected.
8. We cannot direct the authorities to confer status of appointment to the petitioner. It is true that there was legitimate expectation of the petitioner once she applied for the post as she was eligible just because the pay scale was altered, the respondent could not have altered the situation. However, that was not the prayer before the Tribunal, hence, we cannot go into all these facts. Hence, dismissal of O.A. cannot be found fault with.
9. We have all the sympathy to the petitioner but we cannot go beyond the scope of the litigation under Article 227 of the Constitution.
10. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of as the respondents have decided to cancel the entire procedure taken by them.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 Irshad