- (1.) This appeal arises out of the Judgement and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in OA No. 484 of 1994 preferred by the respondent. By means of the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal gave a direction to the appellant Union of India to review the matter relating to imposition of ban on recruitment. Such a review was directed to be made within ten weeks from the date of communication of the order. In case it was found that the ban was not necessary to be continued, the respondent would be offered an appointment for the post for which he had applied and in case it is decided to continue the ban on recruitment, in that event, as soon as it is lifted, the respondent would be offered an appointment without considering the age bar.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The brief facts are that an advertisement was published on 12-5-1984 for recruitment to the posts of Chargeman (Grade II) on probation. They were required in different disciplines, namely, mechanical, electrical, electronics, etc. The advertisement was for different ordnance factories all over India. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, selection test was held sometime in July 1984 and it appears that later a select list was also prepared. The respondent happened to be one of those who are said to have been selected for appointment, the appellants have though submitted that the selection process had not yet completed. We, however, find that there hardly remained anything yet to be done in the process. In any case, the persons who were selected can be said to be only on the select list for appointment to the post of Chargeman (Grade II). This process seems to have completed sometime in 1986 but actual appointments were not being made. Hence, the respondent made representations to the authorities but of no avail. By letter dated 16-3-1990, the authorities informed the respondent that selection process could not be processed any further due to ban on recruitment. After receipt of that reply, it appears that the respondent took no steps except by filing an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1994. The said OA was disposed of with the directions as indicated in the preceding paragraph.;