AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the validity of judgment dated 22nd November 2007 passed in Original Application No. 300/07 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA at admission stage.
As per facts narrated in this case, petitioner was given temporary charge of EDMC in the Post Office situated in village Semal, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand on 06.06.2001 and petitioner continued to discharge his duties and subsequently an order dated 6th January 2003 was passed by which the persons who had been engaged without approval of the competent authority were ordered to be terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner applicant approached the High Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 357/03 wherein he challenged the order dated 06.01.2003 but for want of jurisdiction the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of 10 days and the said order was passed by the High Court in the abovesaid writ petition on 19th September 2003.
The petitioner-applicant did not file any original application challenging the validity of order dated 6th January 2003 and later on, on 7th January 2005, petitioner preferred Original Application with an Application for condonation of delay. Said OA was registered as Original Application No16/05 with Misc. Application No. 03/05. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said OA vide order dated 15th September 2006 holding that OA has not been filed within limitation and as per judgment of Honble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal and Ors. 2000 1 ATJ 178 SC until the hurdle of limitation is crossed, the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon the merits of any case, meaning thereby the petitioners earlier Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 15th September 2006.
Another OA was filed by the petitioner in which again it was mentioned that he was appointed by way of giving temporary charge on the post of GDSMC on 6th January 2001 and even after dismissal of earlier OA on 15th September 2006, neither any adverse order was passed nor the order dated 6th January 2003 was given effect by the respondents and the applicant-petitioner was allowed to work and a certificate of appreciation was also issued in his favour by respondent No. 2 on 29th December 2006 but on 16th November 2007 respondent No. 3 came to GDSPO of the village Semal where applicant was working and told the applicant that his services shall stand terminated with immediate effect and on asking about such order it was told that no order is required to be passed. The petitioner applicant in subsequent OA sought following reliefs:
RELIEF(S) SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT:
In view of the facts and grounds mentioned in Para 4 & Para 5 of the original application, the applicant, most humbly and respectfully pray for the following relief:
A] By an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents may kindly be declared illegal and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the applicant to perform his duty in the post office of GDSMC, Khemnor.
B] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents and the order passed by them in violation of principles of natural justice and GDS Rules, 2001 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C] Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon''ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble appellant.
The OA filed by the petitioner against verbal termination order was registered as Original Application No. 300/07. The learned Tribunal after considering all aspects of the matter, dismissed the said OA on 22nd November 2007. Upon perusal of judgment dated 22nd November 2007, it emerges that OA was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that vide judgment dated 15th September 2006, the earlier OA filed against the order dated 06.01.2003 was dismissed. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the OA made following observations:
From the above, it is clear that applicant was never validly or legally appointed. There was no ''appointment'' as such and his engagement was void ab- initio. Further continuance of the applicant in service, who was never legally appointed, is by no means in ''public interest'' in the facts and circumstances of the present case, plea of ''Estoppel''/''Waiver'' based on ''Doctrine of Equity'', has no legs to stand and simply not attracted. Reference may be made to the case of I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and Others,
The instant writ petition was listed in Court on 19th April, 2010 and on that date arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard at length, during course of arguments, two querries were made to the learned Counsel for the petitioner; whether any appointment order has been issued by the respondents for his engagement, or any order for termination has been issued. The counsel for the petitioner replied that time may be granted to ascertain the above facts. In the interest of justice, 2 days'' time was granted but today Shri S.P. Sharma did not appear and in his place petitioner himself appeared and made a prayer that no such orders were issued by the respondents.
We have perused the entire pleadings of the case so also the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22nd November 2007 in OA No. 300/07.
Admittedly, in the year 2003 a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner before this Court challenging the order dated 06.01.2003 in which a specific averment was made that general order was passed by the respondents to terminate the services of all those persons who were appointed without approval with immediate effect. The validity of the said order was challenged in the writ petition, however, the said writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the High Court on 19th September 2003 while granting liberty to the petitioner to file OA against the said order within 10 days but instead of filing OA within 10 days, petitioner preferred OA in the month of January 2005 after one year and three months. The said OA was registered as Original Application No. 16/2005 with Misc. Application No. 03/2005 but same was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation vide judgment dated 15.09.2006. The order dated 15.09.2006 was challenged before this Court in the year 2008 after lapse of three years by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5137/08. We have dismissed the said writ petition today itself. On the same ground, another OA was filed challenging the validity of order dated 6th January 2003 whereby it was decided to terminate the services of those employees who were engaged without approval with another ground that inspite of dismissal of OA No. 16/2005 he is continuing on the post.
The Tribunal considered the matter and arrived at the finding that after dismissal of earlier OA No. 16/2005, petitioner cannot be permitted to file another OA challenging the same order dated 6th January 2003. The Tribunal observed that neither any appointment order is on record nor any termination order on record and validity of order dated 6th January 2003 has already been adjudicated in OA No. 16/2005 vide judgment dated 15.09.2006. Today, the writ petition filed in the year 2008 against the order of Tribunal dated 15.09.2006 has also been dismissed, therefore, on the same ground no relief can be granted nor petitioner can claim any relief without any documentary evidence to show that he was ever appointed or terminated. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. Hence this writ petition is also hereby dismissed.