Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J).
1. The applicant is aggrieved against the order dated 26.02.2015 whereby his claim for appointment as MTS, on result of examination held on 20.01.2013 for the vacancy year 2009 has been rejected.
2. The fact which led to filing of the present O.A are that father of the applicant was working with the respondent department, who unfortunately died on 18.04.2004 while in service. Thereafter, case of the applicant was considered for appointment on compassionate ground and was offered appointment on 04.07.2007. The respondents issued an advertisement on 10.12.2012 for filling up the post of Multi Task Staff (in short ‘MTS’) through departmental examination. The applicant being eligible appeared in the examination held on 20.01.2013. One Sh. Jaipal was offered appointment as he scored higher marks. On a complaint by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, respondent no. 4, who secured second highest marks, an enquiry was conducted against Mr. Jaipal and ultimately, his candidature was cancelled being found ineligible. Respondent No. 4 approached this Tribunal by filing O.A No. 1562/HR/2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2014, wherein he took a plea that since he is next in merit and candidate, Sh. Jaipal who was selected, his candidature has been cancelled, therefore, direction be issued to the authorities to offer him appointment as MTS. Pending O.A, Sh. Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Postman which is a promotional post of MTS, therefore, he did not join as MTS and the applicant, who is next in merit, stakes his claim for appointment against said vacancy. When his request was turned downed vide impugned order, he has filed the present O.A to invalidate the action of the respondents for not offering him appointment as MTS being next in waiting.
3. The respondents have filed the written statement wherein they have categorically stated that as many as 29 candidates appeared in the written examination held on 20.01.2013. Out of which, three were declared passed. Sh. Jaipal who scored higher marks was offered appointment in terms of the recommendation made by the selection committee. Selection committee did not prepare any waiting list. On verification of documents, Sh. Jaipal candidature was cancelled and as per the order of this court in case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. U.O.I, he was offered appointment, since, he had already joined the another post as Postman, therefore, he did not join the post of MTS and resultantly said vacancy was notified in the year 2014. Pursuant to which examination was held on 18.10.2015, the applicant also appeared but did not succeed. One Sh. Ashish Kumar offered appointment as MTS against said vacancy.
4. The respondents have also filed additional affidavit as directed by this court and have also produced the original record. In additional affidavit, they have clarified that vacancy for the year 2009 which could not be filled up earlier, was allowed to be filled up by holding the examination in the year 2015 by the competent authority and therefore, averment of the applicant that vacancy for the year 2009 is still lying vacant is totally false and without any basis, therefore, present O.A be dismissed on this ground.
5. We have heard Sh. D.S. Malik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Ram Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the official respondents.
6. Sh. Malik, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment as MTS for the vacancy year 2009 where he was declared successful and his name was kept in waiting list is totally arbitrary, illegal and a direction be issued to them to offer appointment as MTS. He submitted that the respondents are trying to mislead this court by submitting that same vacancy has been filled up in the year 2015 by offering appointment to one Sh. Ashish whereas vacancy is still lying vacant and they cannot fill up that vacancy because Sh. Rakesh Kumar, had refused to join the post only on 05.09.2015, therefore, their application written on 27.08.2015 is nothing but to mislead this court and to frustrate the right of the applicant.
7. Per contra, Sh. Ram Lal Gupta, counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents have not prepared any waiting list and as per recommendation by the selection committee, appointment was offered to Sh. Jaipal whose candidature was later on cancelled. Once the post has been consumed by Mr. Jaipal then the applicant cannot seek any direction to respondents to offer him appointment against said post, when said post was advertised in the year 2015, the applicant also appeared in the written examination but did not clear the examination, therefore, at this stage, he cannot be allowed to challenge their decision.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
9. Perusal of the record makes it clear that for filling up the earlier post of MTS of the year 2009, the examination was held on 20.01.2013. Valid committee was constituted who recorded minutes of meeting held on 30.01.2013 at Circle office, Ambala and recommended name of Mr. Jaipal for the appointment. The original record of selection does not suggest as argued by the applicant that the committee has also forwarded the waiting list. Therefore, averment of the applicant that his name was in waiting list stands falsified. Moreover the wait listed candidates have got no indefeasible or legally vested right to seek appointment. No mandamus need be issued by a writ court to appoint a can
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
didate from the waiting list only because there exist a vacancy. Merely that direction was issued in case of Mr. Rakesh Kumar by this Tribunal to consider his case for appointment if he figures in merit list, does not allow him to get same relief when the said vacancy was notified/advertised subsequently, the applicant appeared/participated in selection process but could not make it. As result of which, Sh. Ashish was offered appointment. In the above backdrop of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with well reasoned impugned order and accordingly, present O.A is dismissed being devoid of merit. 10. No costs.