AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 70 of 2013, which was decided alongwith Original
Application No. 203/00270/2014.
The relief sought for in the original application reads as under:
“(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the entire selection process undertaken by respondent No. 2 for
appointment of MTS pursuant to advertisement dated 25.09.2009.
(b) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 23.07.2012 (Annexure A-2) to the extent respondent No.
4 is sought to be selected/empanelled.
(c) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh select list and panel by taking sum total of
the marks obtained by candidates in the written examination and on account of having technical qualification.
(d) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to award 6 marks to the application for the wrong assessment
of three questions being Question No. 3(a) and (e) and question No. 4(c).
(e) Any other relief (including the cost of the present proceedings) which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem just, fair and equitable in the circumstances
of the case may be granted.â€
The petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection process conducted to fill 105 posts of Multi Tasking Staff (in short ‘MTS’) to be recruited in
the offices of the Accountant General (Audit), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh, Raipur and Office of the
Principal Director of Audit, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur.
Original Application No. 70 of 2013 was filed by 4 applicants, out of which only the present petitioner has filed this application.
A perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal would go to show that the grievance was expressed that the reservation policy of Government of
India was not followed while carrying out the MTS selection process.
The learned Tribunal observed that the guidelines holding with regard to reservation have been duly applied for while recruiting MTS.
The writ application challenging the said order is filed after almost 4 years from the date of passing of the order.
Delay is sought to be explained by contending that on wrong legal advise, order dated 26.07.2012, which was also a subject matter of challenge in
the original application, came to be assailed in Writ Petition (S) No. 686 of 2020 by filing a writ application which, however, was dismissed on
10.02.2020. It is also stated that one of the applicant’s, namely, Devlal Banjare was taking steps on behalf of the applicants and rejection of the
original application was not informed by him to the petitioner.
Writ Petition (S) No. 686 of 2020 was also filed in the year 2020. The petitioner had filed, as noted earlier, the original application alongwith 3
other persons and Devlal Banjare is not one of the applicants alongwith the petitioner.
Though Devlal Banjare had filed Original Application No. 203/00270/2014, when the Original Application No. 70 of 2013 was not filed alongwith
Devlal Banjare, the ground cited to explain the delay is found to be a very feeble one. That apart, it is also not indicated as to when Devlal Banjare
informed the petitioner about dismissal of the original application.
In a matter of present nature, where a selection process is questioned, unexplained delay of 4 years cannot be brushed aside while considering a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Taking that view, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.