- (1.) Pursuant to an advertisement dated 30/08/2008 for the posts of 'Mazdoor' in the Ministry of Defence issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, the petitioners Buddha Deb Pal and Sandeep Kumar applied for the aforesaid post. They appeared for the required test and were selected. Aggrieved by the fact that no appointment letter was issued in their favour the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench for redressal by filing Original application No. 1261 of 2011.
(2.) The main contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the advertisement for recruitment to Group 'D' posts (Mazdoor vacancies) issued on 30/08/2008 did not mention that the required qualification for the said post is matriculation. Therefore the petitioners cannot be denied appointment due to amendment of recruitment rules after their selection. The petitioners further asserted that they are similarly situated as Himangshu Sekhar Mondal, one of the selected candidates for the post of 'Mazdoor' whose appointment letter was cancelled vide letter dated 31/07/2009 but by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original application No. 2281 of 2010 a fresh appointment letter was issued in his favour. The petitioners therefore prayed that the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2281 of 2010 be extended to them by issuing necessary direction upon the respondents to allow them to join the post of 'Mazdoor'.
(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners and on perusal of the pleadings with reference to the materials produced, the Tribunal dismissed the Original application No. 1261 of 2011 vide order dated 20/02/2012 with the following observation: - "It is not in dispute that applicants were selected but were not issued any appointment letter. Justification assigned by the respondents in their communication placed on record is that recommendations made by 6th Central Pay Commission for stoppage of recruitment to Group 'D' posts where essential qualification is lower than matriculation, has been accepted and therefore selection process underway should be kept in abeyance till further instructions. No further instructions have been issued till date. The reasons assigned by the respondents are justified and satisfy the requirement of law laid in Shankarsan Dash . As far as reliance placed on this Bench's judgement in Himangshu Sekhar Mondal is concerned, we may note that applicant therein was appointed and later terminated vide order dated 31/07/2009. Such is not the fact in the case in hand. At the cost of repetition we may note that no specific appointment order was issued in favour of applicants herein and therefore said judgement and order is totally distinguishable.";