Shri Vijay Kullu vs The Union of India and Others

S. Pal, J.—Since issues are common, on 22.11.2013 the matters were taken up for hearing analogously. These writ petitions, being WPCT 071 of 2013 and WPCT 072 of 2013, were filed by the petitioners assailing the common order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Circuit Bench at Port Blair whereby their prayer for quashing the order dated 14th October, 2010 keeping their appointment orders on compassionate ground in abeyance by the authority, was rejected.

The short facts are that by order dated 20th September, 2010 issued by Director of Health Services, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, the respondent, the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground. Thereafter the petitioners reported for duty and had joined their respective posts. However, by order dated 14th October, 2010 passed by Director of Health Services the order of appointment was kept in abeyance till further order. It appears that the petitioners made representation but were unsuccessful. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14th October, 2010 the petitioners filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. As noted, the Tribunal by its order dated 22nd January, 2013 had dismissed the application. Aggrieved, these writ petitions were filed.

It appears that the writ petitions were admitted on 21st February, 2013 and an interim order was passed staying the order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the order dated 14th October, 2010 passed by Director of Health Services, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair.

It is submitted by Mrs. Nag, learned advocate for the petitioners, that as pursuant to the appointment order dated 20th September, 2010 the petitioners had reported for duty and had joined, their right cannot be affected by the impugned order dated 14th October, 2010. Though an administrative error can be corrected, however, appointments cannot be kept in abeyance in the manner as it has been done. Since no other person has been appointed and no order has been communicated cancelling the appointment, the order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the learned Tribunal and the impugned order dated 14th October, 2010 issued by the Director of Health Services cannot be sustained.

Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, submitted that in view of the office memorandum dated 03rd December, 1999 the petitioners were not entitled to be appointed. As under the law there was no vacancy and as the entire appointment process was reviewed by the Review Screening Committee, the order dated 14th October, 2010 and the order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the Tribunal are just and proper.

Heard the learned advocates for the parties. There is no dispute that pursuant to the order the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground. They joined their respective posts. While they were working the impugned order dated 14th October, 2010 was issued by the Director of Health Services keeping the order of appointment on compassionate ground "in abeyance till further orders".

In our view since the petitioners had joined their respective posts pursuant to the order of appointment on compassionate ground and had been working and as the Director without assigning any reason in the order dated 14th October, 2010 had merely kept the order of appointment in abeyance, such order cannot be sustained. Moreover, merely because the petitioners had appeared before the Review Screening Committee, as found by the Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the order dated 22nd January, 2013, it cannot be a ground for rejection of the application before the Tribunal. Further, the reason given by the learned Tribunal in the first sentence in paragraph 12 in support of the order 22nd January, 2013 that "We find that the compassionate appointments of these persons have been offered in close proximity to the date of superannuation of the earlier Director" is uncalled for and out of context more so as the impugned order dated 14th October, 2010 is bereft of reasons. Therefore, since we find that the petitioners had already joined their respective posts and the order dated 14th October, 2010 keeping the appointment of the petitioners on compassionate ground in abeyance till further order was without any reason and as appearance before the Review Screening Committee by the applicants cannot take away their right of continuing in their services, the order dated 14th October, 2010 passed by the Director of Health Services and the order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be sustained and are set aside and quashed. Interim order passed on 21st February, 2013 is confirmed. The writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.

Toufique Uddin, J

I agree.