B. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) -This is a strange case where respondent No. 2 who could by no means be eligible for submitting the application for a post being admittedly overaged by several years and there could be no relaxation of age in his case, succeeded before the Central Administrative Tribunal, only on the ground that while passing the order of termination principle of natural justice had not been observed.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2007 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), by which the Original Application No. 1128 of 2006 filed by respondent No. 2, Pankaj Kodesia, has been allowed, placing reliance upon the judgment in Original Application No. 1250 of 2006, Anuragh Kumar Johri v. Union of India and others, which was allowed only on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioners issued an advertisement dated 5.11.2005 for appointment on various posts as mentioned in the advertisement, including one post of Security Supervisor. The eligibility for the post of Security Supervisor was that the candidate should possess Senior Secondary Certificate or the qualification equivalent thereto from a recognised Board of Education; he should be between the age limit of 18-27 years as on 1.8.2005, which could be relaxed in the case of candidates belonging to S.C./S.T. and O.B.C. and Ex-serviceman, as per rules. The advertisement further provided that preference would be given to Ex-serviceman and persons having professional qualifications of courses like fire fighting maintenance of fire fighting equipments, maintenance of arms and ammunition etc. from Government recognised institutes. The said post was to carry the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-125-7,000 plus usual allowances. The respondent No. 2, who belongs to general category, applied for the said post and was selected. Thereafter, he was offered appointment vide appointment order dated 15/17.4.2006 (Annexure-A-7 to the original application). In the said appointment order, it was clearly indicated that his appointment was made in terms of conditions laid down in office memorandum No. F-1-4/Estt./Rectt./2005/2784 dated 31.3.2006. The date of birth of the petitioner, in the said appointment order dated 15/17.4.2006 has been recorded as 31.3.1975. It appears from the record that some enquiry was conducted with regard to the appointments made in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement by a committee consisting of three Members of Indian Council of Agricultural Research during the period Shri Rajveer Singh, was the Director, Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, U.P., and it surfaced that large number of irregularities had been committed including appointment of his daughter, son-in-law and relatives of other officials of the said Institution. Out of total eight appointments made, 6 persons were sons/daughter/son-in-law of the Director, Senior Scientist or other employees of the institute and out of remaining two one was overage and the other appointment was made against an unadvertised post. All such persons were working on probation. After examining the investigation report and considering the irregularities committed in these appointments, the services of all such candidates including the respondent No. 2 were terminated applying the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Rules of 1965'). The said order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 by filing original application before the learned Tribunal, which has been allowed, as explained above, placing reliance upon the judgment in Original Application No. 1250 of 2006, Anuragh Kumar Johri v. Union of India and others, basically holding that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Hence the present writ petition.
(3.) LARGE number of issues have been agitated before us by Shri G. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, including the issue as to whether a probationer can be removed from service by applying the Rules of 1965; and as to whether in the facts of this case, principles of natural justice could be invoked. Shri Gautam, has fairly conceded that the date of birth shown by the respondent No. 2 in the affidavit filed in the original application before the learned Tribunal as well as that disclosed in the letter of appointment is correct.;