G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) WHETHER the petitioner is emitted to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Engineer Branch of Western Command, Chandi Mandir is the only question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision contained in letter Annexure P.16 dated 10.6.1993 sent to him by the Chief Engineer, Western Command, (Engineer Branch), Chandi Mandir (respondent No. 2) and order Annexure P.4 dated 13.3.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, the 'Tribunal') dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that in pursuance of the requisition sent by respondent No. 2, the Employment Exchange, Ambala Cantt. sponsored the petitioner's name for selection as Clerk. She appeared in the selection held in March, 1983. After considering the relevant merit of the candidates, the Selection Committee prepared two lists, one of which consisted the names of those candidates (248) who had secured 45 and above marks. The other list contained names of 108 candidates who had secured less than 40 marks. Name of the petitioner was included at Sr. No. 90 in the second list. After about 4 years, the office of respondent No. 2 sent letter No. 30522/LDC/EIC(I) dated 13.1.1987, to the petitioner to indicate her willingness in the prescribed proforma for appointment as Clerk. She gave consent vide letter dated 23.1.1987. Thereafter, the office of respondent No. 2 sent letters dated 13.4.1983, 29.1.1990, 24.5.1990, 24.11.1990, 2.3.1991 and 21.12.1991 on the issue of her appointment as Lower Division Clerk. However, vide letter dated 10.6.1993, she was told that she cannot be appointed. The petitioner challenged the implied rejection of her claim for appointment as Clerk by filing an application under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). She pleaded that after having offered appointment as early as in 1987, the respondents cannot refuse to give posting on the pretext of non -availability of sanctioned posts. She also averred that a large number of vacant posts of Lower Division Clerks were available and, therefore, the respondents were bound to appoint her.
(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it was averred that the order appointing the petitioner was never issued and the letter asking her willingness to accept appointment cannot be construed as an offer of appointment. The respondents further averred that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioner had been appointed and, therefore, she cannot seek a mandatory direction for her appointment ignoring the better claim of others.;