Decided on February 14,2020

Mohd Zabeer Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


- (1.)The order dated 15.01.2014 passed by the respondent No.2, in compliance to the order dated 16.01.2013 passed in SWP No. 91/2013 titled Mohd Zabeer Vs. UOI and others is subject matter of challenge in this petition. By virtue of order dated 15.01.2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order '), the representation of the petitioner for allowing him to join as Constable (GD) in pursuance of order of his appointment issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2005 has been rejected.
(2.)The relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this petition deserve to be noticed before considering the grounds of challenge urged in this petition. Pursuant to an Advertisement Notification issued by the respondents for appointment of Constable (GD), the petitioner participated in the selection process and was declared successful. An offer of appointment was issued to him by the FHQ, SSB, New Delhi vide Memorandum No.12/31/13 Bn/2005/SSB/E-III/15273-75 dated 08.11.2005 and the petitioner was directed to report at Training Centre, SSB Gorakpur on 15.12.2005. The petitioner failed to report for training on 15.12.2005 despite having been clearly warned that in case he failed to report within 45 days of the cut-off date, his appointment would be deemed to have been cancelled. The petitioner, however, disputes that the offer of appointment was ever issued/served upon him. The case of the petitioner is that after he was declared selected as Constable (GD) in the selection process he had participated, he was not issued any appointment order. It is claimed that it was only in the month of February, 2012, when the petitioner came to know from his colleagues that he was selected like them and they had been issued appointment orders, he made request to the respondents for issuance of formal order of appointment and permit him to join his duties. The petitioner claims to have made representation on 21.02.2012 in this regard. It is further case of the petitioner that when his representation was not considered, he was constrained to file SWP No. 91/2013 which came to be decided by this Court on the motion hearing date itself vide order dated 16.01.2013. The respondents were directed to accord consideration to the representation claimed to have been filed by the petitioner, in accordance with the rules occupying the field and take a decision within eight weeks from the date a copy of the order was made available to the respondents. In compliance to the order dated 16.01.2013, the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order impugned on the grounds that it was highly belated and the petitioner lost the appointment by not reporting for training within the stipulated period. It is categoric assertion of the petitioner that he was never served with offer of appointment nor was he ever told to report for training as is contended by the respondents.
(3.)The respondents have contested the writ petition and have justified the impugned order. It is contention of the respondents that not only the offer of appointment was issued by the respondents with a direction to the petitioner to report at Training Centre Gorakpur on 15.12.2005, but, in the same letter, the petitioner was made aware that non-reporting on the date above, would result in loss of inter se seniority on his initial appointment and also that, if he failed to report within 45 days of the cut-off date, his offer of appointment would be treated as "cancelled". It is further submitted by the respondents that the aforesaid letter was sent to the petitioner on the address given by him under registered post bearing No.RLL No.4076 dated 18.11.2005. It is, thus, the stand of the respondents that on account of failure of the petitioner to report at Training Centre, Gorakpur, the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner was withdrawn. The writ petition has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner has filed this petition after a gap of eight years of the cause of action and, therefore, the same is hit by inordinate delay and laches. The petitioner has not given any explanation for approaching this Court after eight years. The respondents also assert that no representation before filing of the writ petition was ever received by them, and therefore, there was no question of according any consideration to the claim of the petitioner. It is, thus, urged that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the respondents when they received the directions passed by this Court on 16.01.2013 in SWP No. 91/2013.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.