This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment of the petitioner as Storekeeper in the Army. The court held that a subsequent policy shift to internal promotion extinguished the petitioner's claim, and no right accrued to direct appointment.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.11.2018
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P. No. 5560 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.5913 of 2017
Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. By the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
101, South Block,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Major General (Ordnance Services),
HQ Southern Command, Pune,
Maharashtra – 908 791.
3. Army Ordnance Corps (Records),
Thirmulgiri, Secunderabad,
Andhra Pradesh – 900 453.
4. The Commandant,
Ordnance Depot, Avadi,
Chennai – 600 055.
5. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai – 600 104. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article of 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Order dated 14.07.2016 passed in O.A. No. 596 of 2015 on the file of the 5th respondent herein and quash the same consequently directing the Respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the Storekeeper post as called vide Notification within specified time.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Chidambaram
For Respondents : Mr. V. Balasubramanian SPC for R1 to R4 R5 - Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The petitioner was one of the candidates who was invited for attending interview for the post of Storekeeper pursuant to the recruitment vide Notification dated 2531.12.2010. There was no further progress made since the respondent authorities took a stand that the petitioner did not have the requisite age qualification as per the Rules though the Notification by inadvertence said otherwise. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and thereafter this Court in WP No. 6922 of 2014 and on 04.06.2014, the following order was passed:-
“16. As already pointed out above, the upper age limit in terms of the 2nd impugned notification for the post of Storekeeper was fixed as 18-25 years as on 14.01.2011 and on that date, the petitioner was aged about 25 years and 8 months and by applying Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998, the upper age limit is fixed as 27 years and in that event, the petitioner is eligible in terms of age prescription. The Delhi High Court has also held so in the above cited decision.
subsequent cause of action in filing the application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, rejected the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence the present writ petition.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssm/mmi To 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
101, South Block,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Major General (Ordnance Services),
HQ Southern Command, Pune,
Maharashtra – 908 791.
3. Army Ordnance Corps (Records),
Thirmulgiri, Secunderabad,
Andhra Pradesh – 900 453.
4. The Commandant,
Ordnance Depot, Avadi,
Chennai – 600 055.
+1cc to Mr.M.Chidambaram, Advocate SR.No.78872
+1cc to M/s.V.Balasubramanian, Advocate SR.No.78222
W.P. No. 5560 of 2017
SPD(CO)
GMY(04/12/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can direct appointment of petitioner despite a subsequent policy decision barring direct recruitment.
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to the post in light of the decision to use promotion instead of recruitment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP No. 6922 of 2014Referred¶12
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Kumar
Union of India
M.M.Sundresh
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
