B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 11/1/2000 (Annex. 4), by which the application of the respondent employee has been allowed 'by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad (hereinafter called the Tribunal) directing the department to absorb and regularise the services of the said employee after 11 years of termination of his service and order dated 07/2/2001 (Annex-6) by which the review petition of the Department has been dismissed.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-employee had worked as a Casual Labourer from 06/1/1984 to 1986. His services were dispensed with for want of work. His case was to be considered for re-employment as per the seniority list of casual labourers as and when the vacancy would arise in the future. The respondent employee filed an application in 1997 for appointment, absorption and regularisation in the Railway Department as Class IV employee. His application was contested by the Department submitting that the case of the said employee was considered, he appeared in the screening test but could not pass, and thus he could not be empanelled for absorption against one of the substantive vacancies. The claim of the said applicant has been allowed on the ground that the department failed to produce the copy of the guidelines prescribing the procedure for holding the screening test for absorption of casual labourers and record thereof. The review application has also been rejected. Hence this petition.
(3.) Shri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the employee was not in service from 1986-1997. He filed the application after eleven years, therefore, the question of his absorption/regularization could, not arise; it was not the case even of the applicant that he succeeded in the test conducted by the Department, nor allegations of malafide had been alleged against any person, nor there was any pleading suggesting any illegality or irregularity in the screening test, therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to draw the adverse inference against the department for not producing the policy etc; the Tribunal could not issue a direction to absorb and regularise the service of the said applicant as at the most the Tribunal could direct to consider his case for regularisation, hence the petition deserves to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and orders.;