Pankaj Arjariya & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri Srijan Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.

This Original Application is filed by the applicants, who are 2 in numbers, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case as narrated in Original Application is that an advertisement/notice was published by respondents to fill the post of Gramin Dak Sewak, Shakha Daakpal for different village in District Hamirpur and Banda and as per the terms and conditions of the said notification, selection ought to have been made on the basis of merit of marks obtained by the candidates in the High School Exam or equivalent examination. Pursuant thereto, the applicant-1 being eligible, applied for the said post at post office, Garha, District Hamirpur and applicant-2 applied for the said post at post office, Narauli Pailani, District Banda. For the post office at Garha, total five candidates including the applicant-1 had applied and out of these five candidates, Shri Puspendra Chaurasiya was at Sr. No.1, whereas the name of applicant was at Sr. No.2. However, said Puspendra Chaurasiya was also applied for post office at Bhainsmari, wherein he also selected and taken appointment. Therefore, the applicant-1 was placed at Sr. No.1 for the post office at Garha, Hamirpur.

On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit on 12.10.2018, wherein it has been stated that a Notification was issued on 31.12.2014 for filling the post of GDS BPM, Garha (Ragaul). In pursuant thereto, total 23 applications were received and out of which, the applicant-1 was placed at Sr. No.2 as per his merit list. Thereafter, the documents and criminal antecedents verification was sent for verification, but verification report was not received up to 30.06.2015. In the meantime, the Directorate, New Delhi vide order dated 28.05.2015 stopped the recruitment process. However, Vide letter dated 16.09.2015, the old recruitment process was continued, but the applicant-1 was Sr. No.2 in the merit list and candidate, who was at Sr. No.1 submitted his willingness for the Post office at Bhaismari, wherein he was engaged. Thereafter, the process of engagement was again started, but the Directorate vide Letter dated 01.08.2016, stopped the engagement of GDS and as such, the case of the applicants were not considered. In compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the representations of the applicants have already been decided by the respondents. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, original application is liable to be dismissed.

In reply, rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the applicants on 15.05.2019, reiterating the same averment as has been stated in the original Application. However, it is stated that the verification report of applicant-1 was sent to the respondents by the concerned Authorities in January, 2016 and the verification report of applicant-2 was sent to the respondents by the concerned Authorities in December, 2015 itself. Admittedly, the selection process was stopped by Directorate, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.05.2015, but same was again re-started w.e.f. 16.09.2015 vide Directorate Letter dated 16.09.2015. After re-starting the selection process, the respondents received the verification report of the applicants, but due to the reasons best known the respondents, they have not issued engagement letter in favour of the applicants. Again the process of engagement was re-stopped vide letter dated 01.08.2016 issued Directorate, New Delhi and the applicants ought to have been engaged prior to stoppage of selection process.

Learned counsel for the applicants assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the applicants were duly selected for engagement as Gramin Dak Sevaks on the basis of merit in accordance with the recruitment notification. After completion of the selection process, the educational certificates, character and antecedents of the applicants were verified by the competent authorities and the verification reports were duly forwarded to the respondents. Despite the applicants being placed at the top of the merit list for the respective posts and no impediment subsisting against their engagement, the respondents failed to issue engagement letters in their favour. Although the recruitment process was temporarily stopped vide Directorate letter dated 28.05.2015, the same was revived vide letter dated 16.09.2015. By the time the process was revived, the verification reports of the applicants had already been received by the respondents. Therefore, there was no justification for withholding their engagement.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that mere inclusion of the names of the applicants in the merit list did not confer any indefeasible right of engagement. The engagement process could be finalized only after completion of all requisite formalities, including verification of educational certificates and character/antecedents of the candidates. Since the verification reports were not received within the stipulated time, the process could not be taken to its logical conclusion.

We have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records.

The short question for consideration is whether the applicants could have been denied engagement despite being placed first in merit and completion of the requisite verification, merely on account of the subsequent Directorate order dated 01.08.2016 stopping pending GDS engagements.

From the material available on record, it is evident that the applicants had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the notification issued for filling up the posts of Gramin Dak Sevak, Shakha Daakpal at different post offices in District Hamirpur and District Banda respectively. The selection was to be made on the basis of merit of marks obtained in the High School Examination or equivalent examination. Applicant-1 had applied for the post at Garha, District Hamirpur, whereas applicant-2 had applied for the post at Narauli Pailani, District Banda. Applicant-1 was initially placed at Serial No.2 in the merit list, but the candidate placed at Serial No.1, namely, Shri Puspendra Chaurasiya, was subsequently selected/engaged for another post at Bhainsmari. Consequently, applicant-1 came to occupy the first position for the post at Garha. Applicant-2 was placed at Serial No.1 for the post at Narauli Pailani. Thus, both the applicants were the candidates standing first in merit for the respective posts.

The record further reveals that the recruitment process, which had initially been stopped vide Directorate letter dated 28.05.2015, was subsequently revived vide letter dated 16.09.2015. After revival of the recruitment process, the requisite verification of the applicants was duly undertaken and the verification report in respect of applicant-1 was received by the respondents in January, 2016, whereas the verification report in respect of applicant-2 was received in March, 2016. Thus, the requisite verification process was completed well before the subsequent order dated 01.08.2016 by which the engagement in pending GDS recruitment cases was directed to be stopped.

In the aforesaid circumstances, when the applicants had secured the first position in the merit list for the respective posts and their requisite verification reports had already been received by the respondents in January and March, 2016 respectively, there was no apparent impediment in proceeding with their engagement. The applicants cannot be made to suffer on account of the administrative delay in finalizing their engagement. The subsequent instruction dated 01.08.2016, directing stoppage of engagement in pending GDS cases, cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the applicants when their cases had already substantially progressed and the requisite verification had been completed much prior thereto.

It is true that mere inclusion in a merit list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right of engagement. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable inasmuch as the applicants had emerged at Serial No.1 for the respective posts and the necessary verification of their educational certificates and character and antecedents had already been completed. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicants suffered from any disqualification or that any deficiency on their part prevented issuance of the engagement letters. The delay, if any, was attributable to the respondents. Therefore, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own administrative delay and subsequently deny the applicants the benefit of the selection process on the basis of the order dated 01.08.2016.

Further, it is also relevant to note that candidates namely Sri Nagendra Kumar Rajpoot and Sri Pushpendra Chaurasiya, who had applied pursuant to the similar/same advertisement dated 31.12.2014, were issued engagement orders and were subsequently engaged on 09.12.2015 and 28.06.2016, respectively. The applicants, who were similarly situated candidates under the very exact recruitment process and had secured the first position in merit for the respective posts, were, however, denied engagement despite completion of the requisite verification formalities. No cogent or legally sustainable reason has been brought on record by the respondents to justify such differential treatment. In the absence of any distinguishing circumstance, denial of engagement to the applicants while extending the benefit of the similar recruitment process to similarly situated candidates amounts to discriminatory treatment and is violative of the guarantees of equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicants being similarly situated, are entitled to be treated at par with such candidates.

Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of East Coast Railway & Anr. Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 SC 2794, wherein it has been held as under:-

In the present case, the applicants cannot be blamed for the delay in issuance of the engagement letters. They had duly participated in the selection process, secured the requisite merit position and cooperated with the respondents in completing the verification formalities. The record, as noticed above, shows that the necessary verification reports were received in January and March, 2016 respectively. Despite this, the engagement letters were not issued before the Directorate subsequently directed stoppage of pending engagements vide order dated 01.08.2016. Thus, the applicants cannot be made to suffer for the administrative delay on the part of the respondents in finalizing their engagement after the requisite formalities had been completed.

Further, the contention of the respondents that the applicants had no indefeasible right merely by virtue of their inclusion in the merit list is, therefore, of no assistance in the peculiar facts of the present case. The applicants' claim is not founded merely upon their names appearing in the merit list. Their claim is based upon their position at Serial No.1 for the respective posts, completion of the requisite verification formalities and the fact that their cases were kept pending despite the recruitment process having been revived. The subsequent stoppage of engagement, in these circumstances, cannot be permitted to operate retrospectively against the applicants so as to deprive them of consideration for engagement for no fault on their part.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have made out a case for interference with the impugned order dated 28.02.2017. The said order is not sustainable, as the principal ground regarding non-completion/non-receipt of verification is not borne out from the record, and the subsequent stoppage of engagement dated 01.08.2016 cannot, in the peculiar facts of the present case, be used to defeat the claim of the applicants, who had already attained the first position in merit for the respective posts and whose verification reports had been received much prior thereto.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017, passed by respondents is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the quashment of the impugned order, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to engage the applicants to the post in question against the respective posts at Garha, District Hamirpur and Narauli Pailani, District Banda, in accordance with their merit position and the recruitment process in which they had participated, by issuing the engagement orders, within a period eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Resultantly, instant original application stands allowed.

All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.

No order as to costs.