Niraj Kumar Singh vs Union of India and Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 7th December, 2010 passed in O.A. No. 150 of 2010 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court at Ranchi, whereby petitioner''s OA for quashing the order dated 4.8.2010 by which his services have been terminated w.e.f. 16th August, 2010, has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was duly appointed on vacant post and his services have been terminated without notice to him. It is also submitted that even if there was any procedure of screening by any Screening Committee before giving appointment, then that was not in the knowledge of the writ petitioner and that screening could have been subsequent to the appointment also. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the facts stated in the reply in para-10, wherein it has been specifically admitted that applicant-petitioner was appointed against sanctioned and vacant post by the Presiding Officer, who is appointing authority as per the recruitment rule of the Tribunal.

We are of the considered opinion that in Annexure-4, the alleged appointment order is dated 13th February, 2009 and appointment has been given to the petitioner from back date i.e., w.e.f. 12th February, 2009, therefore, the appointment is antedated. Even after this appointment of 12th or 13th February, 2009 the Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi without any delay issued the letter dated 5th March, 2009 that the post in question is not vacant and appointment has not been made after facing the Screening Committee. Though, in reply, it has been stated that the appointment was given against the sanctioned vacant post, but that was absolutely wrong statement of fact, in view of Annexure annexed with the reply, which has been filed by the petitioner along with supplementary affidavit as Annexure-13, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that there were five posts and all were filled up and no vacant post was in existence and the appointment has been given without approval of the Screening Committee.

In view of the above reasons, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the O.A. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.