This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's compliance with an appointment offer. The petitioner claimed the post offered did not match his option, but the Court held no vested right existed for strict adherence to the option, finding the Tribunal order complied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43213 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Singh,Santosh Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,R.K.Misra,Rakesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
“i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct respondents to give offer of appointment either as per last option given as 'N' Assistant in other Central Govt. Ministries/ Departments with all consequential benefits.
ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct respondents to give consequential seniority alongwith financial benefits flown after appointment from the date on which lower merited candidate was given appointment.
Iii) To issue any other, direction or further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of this case.
iv) Award costs in favour of applicant.”
2
“8. In our view these judicial pronouncements do not come to the help of the applicant. It is established that the applicant had qualified the CGL, 2010 Exam under a particular category, but he could not be given appointment as it was later on discovered that the allotted vacancy did not exist. This situation may have been created by non-diligence of the concerned staff of respondents. But, it is almost a fait-accompli now. The applicant has certainly been put to disadvantage. The core of the issue is that Staff Selection Commission only recommends the selected candidates to the concerned department and is not the appointing authority by itself. The user departments are selected on the basis of merit-cum-option of the candidates. The aspect of seniority at this stage would be an imaginary issue as he user department for CGL-2016 is still not known. Therefore, imaginary seniority cannot be accorded to the applicant at this stage.
3
Order Date :- 11.12.2019 Prajapati
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to appointment strictly in accordance with his exercised option.
Whether the impugned Tribunal order offering appointment in the 2016 CGL batch was properly complied with.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Union Of India
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
