Union of India (UOI) vs Hari Prasad

Anil Kumar, J.—This Court while directing the Petitioner to fill the post of Director, CIL lying vacant since 2007 had noticed and observed that Union of India is not discharging its duty to fill up the post of Director, CIL as the present petition was preceded by two earlier litigations vide O.A No. 2209/2007 and O.A No. 322/2008. In these circumstances, the Petitioners were directed to immediately take steps to fill the post on regular basis and to complete the process within four months from 7th July, 2010.

The period of four months granted in these circumstances expired on 6th November, 2010 and the post had not been filled.

No application for extension of time was filed for more than two months after the expiry of time and the above noted application for extension of time was filed on 17th January, 2011.

Though the Court had directed on 7th July, 2010 to immediately take steps to appoint on regular basis Director, CIL, however, in the application the only relevant averment is that the recruitment rules for the post of Director (CIL) re-designated as APPA (CIL) were notified on 1st October, 2010. What steps were taken from 7th July, 2010 up till 1st October, 2010 have not even been disclosed. Why the rules could not be notified prior to 1st October, 2010 has not been disclosed.

The allegation has also been made in the application for extension of time which was filed more than two months after expiry of time granted by this Court that ACR grading of Sh. Hari Prasad were below bench mark and he was asked to give representation for up-gradation of his grading. However, when was this done has not been disclosed. Why he could not be asked to make representation immediately after 7th July, 2010 has not been revealed.

What is stated in the application is that the proposal for filling up one post of APPA (CIL) has been finalized and the proposal will be sent to UPSC. When the proposal was finalized and when the proposal will be sent to UPSC, the Petitioner is apparently vague. It has not been disclosed as to after how much time the proposal which has been finalized will be sent.

The applicant/Petitioner is utterly vague in alleging that the whole process will take some time and it will not be possible to fill up the vacancies on regular basis before 7th November, 2010. This allegation was made on 17th January, 2011 and it has not even been alleged or disclosed as to how much more time it will take and reason for more time. The allegations made by the applicant in the application are utterly vague and are as under:

That the R Rs for the post of Director (CIL), now re-designated as APPA (CIL), were notified on 01.10.2010.

That as certain AC Rs grading of Shri Hari Prasad, JD (Chemistry) were below bench mark, he has been shown his below bench mark AC Rs and asked to exercise his option for giving representation for upgradation of the grading as per procedure laid down by Department of Personnel & Training.

That the proposal for filling up one post of APPA (CIL) has been finalized as per new Recruitment Rules and after reviewing the AC Rs of Shri Hari Prasad, the proposal will be sent to UPSC.

That the whole process will take some time and it has not been possible to fill vacancy on regular basis before 07.11.2010.

The notice was issued on the application on 20th January, 2011 and the learned Counsel for the applicant is unable to disclose as to what more steps have been taken and how much more time is likely to be taken by the applicant.

The learned Counsel rather contends that the application is filed in contemplation of any contempt application being filed by the Respondent. This cannot be a ground for this Court to further extend time in the peculiar facts and circumstances.

Despite the order of this Court categorically holding that it appears that somebody in the Ministry is pulling the strings by preventing the post being filled up on regular basis so that a chosen one can be given the benefit of working as a Director and allowing a Joint Director who has been given the additional charge to continue and, therefore, to complete the process within four months, the order has not been complied with without disclosing any justifiable reasons.

In the totality of facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the application appears to be an abuse of process of law. The applicant has been failed to make out sufficient cause in the facts and circumstances to further extend the time. The application is therefore, without any merit and the applicant is not entitled for extension of time. The application is therefore, dismissed.