M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner, Union of India, Central Ground Water Board Division has challenged the order dated 15.5.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Court, Ranchi) in O.A.No.194/2005, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondents and issued direction to the petitioner to complete the process of selection initiated under Notification dated 2/8th January,1999 for the post of Technical Operator and Cleaner and if the respondents have been found suitable, they should further be considered for appointment to the post in question.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, by advertisement published in the year 1999, invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of technical operator and cleaner. After screening of the applications the respondents and other candidates were interviewed. However, in the meantime, by letter issued by the Central Headquarter, Central Ground Water Board, Faridabad, the recruitment of the above posts were withdrawn. Hence further recruitment process was kept in abeyance. The respondents approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.232/2001, which was disposed of on 18.9.2003 with a direction to the petitioner to reconsider their respective cases. By subsequent application filed by the respondents, liberty was given to approach the Tribunal by filing a fresh application. Therefore, the respondents moved the Tribunal again by filing the aforementioned O.A.No.194/2005. The case of the petitioner, Union of India is that the Central Authority put a ban on filling up all the vacant post without the approval of Ministry of Finance. Subsequently by letter dated 16.4.2004 the Central Headquarter informed that all the vacant posts pertaining to the period prior to 16.5.2000 were abolished by the Ministry and formal order was issued on 1.4.2004. The respondents were accordingly informed in 2004 about abolition of the post. The Tribunal held that the petitioner simply stopped the further process of appointment, already initiated and persons were interviewed. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued direction by the impugned order to publish the result and to make appointment. For better appreciation concluding para 6 of the impugned order is reproduced herein below: - "6. Coming to the reliance place by the respondents on Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Office Memorandum dated 5.8.1999, we note that the ban was put on creation of Plan and Non -Plan Posts by Para 1 of the said OM. However, para 2 of the said OM, which stipulates with "Ban on filling up of vacant posts", clarifies that till the review as desired under the said OM was completed, no vacant posts should be filled up except with the approval of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It is thus evident from the reading of the above said OM dated 5.8.1999 that the process of selection which was started by the respondents, on their own showing on 2/8 January 1999, could have been very well continued with the approval of Ministry of Finance. Admittedly, this has not been done by the respondents in the present case and they have simply stopped the further process of appointment which was initiated under the said notification dated 2/8 January 1999 before the OM dated 5.8.1999 by the Ministry of Finance was issued. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7.5.2004 which has been passed by the respondents pursuant to order dated 18.09.2003 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 24/2002 and 232/2001 filed by both the applicants respectively. We further direct the respondents to complete the process of selection initiated under the Notification dated 2/8 January 1999 for the post of Technical Operator (M) and Cleaner, as far as, two posts meant for the general category are concerned by publishing the result and in case the applicants are found suitable and fit, they should be further considered for formal appointment to the post in question. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
(3.) WE have heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned Standing counsel Central Government, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents.;