- (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India against the judgment and order dated May 21, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit at port Blair) in Original Application N0. 26/an/2007.
(2.) THE relevant facts leading to filing of this application before this court and summarised as under: - (a) There were seven vacancies in the post of "computer", which has been re-designated as Junior Investigator, in the directorate of Economics and Statistics, A and N Administration. The administration invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up such vacancies. Such vacancy notice was published in the daily Telearam dated September 30, 2005. (b) Pursuant to such vacancy notice, Ms. M. Deepa, the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, applied for her appointment in the said post of "computer". By Memorandum dated January 5, 2006 she was directed to be present in the interview for selection in the said post. The selection committee comprised of the Special Secretary (Statistics), the Assistant Director/research officer and one Dr. B. Prabhuram, Professor of Jawaharlal Nehru rashtriya Mahavidyalaya. While the said Special Secretary acted as the Chairman, the Assistant Director/research Officer was the member and Dr. P. Prabhuram was co-opted as the member of the said selection committee. (c) The selection committee conducted interview of 266 candidates and recommended names of seven candidates for appointment against the said posts on the basis of their performances in the interview and considering their academic qualifications. The selection committee, also, recommended names of five more candidates, to be kept in the panel, for appointment against above vacancies, if someone fails to join out of the select list. (d) It is not in dispute that Ms. M. Deepa was on the top of the said waiting list. Undisputed, all the said seven selected candidates joined, but one Ms. Geeta Devi tendered her resignation on or about september 9, 2006, which was accepted by the administration. (e) Ms. M. Deepa applied before the administration for her appointment against the vacancy caused by resignation of Ms. Geeta devi. She relied upon one office memorandum issued by the ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, being no. 41019/18/97-Estt (B) dated June 13, 2000. (f) However, the administration rejected her claim on the ground that the selection committee recommended names of seven candidates and as all of them joined, the question of appointing her from the reserve list could not arise due to resignation of one of the selected and appointed candidates. (g) Being aggrieved, Ms. M. Deepa moved the Central administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal by judgment and order dated May 21, 2007 allowed the application filed by her and directed the Administration to offer her appointment. (h) Being aggrieved, this application under Article 226 of the constitution of India is filed.
(3.) MR. Ashok Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the prayer for appointment by Ms. M. Deepa against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of Ms. Geeta Devi is misconceived. He submits that once all the appointments were made pursuant to the recommendation of the selection committee, the panel has lost its force and on account of vacancy due to resignation of one of the appointed candidates, she could not be offered appointment against such vacancy. Mr. Banerjee submits that the administration is likely to get better candidate if a fresh vacancy notice is published. Mr. Banerjee contends that the office memorandum, referred to hereinabove, has no legal force. In support of his contention Mr. Banerjee cites the decision of the Supreme Court of india in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. B. Valluvan and Ors. , reported in air 2007 Supreme Court 210: 2006 (8) SCC 686.;