w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mohan Lal Gupta & Others v/s Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Director & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- M G INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301DL2002PTC118047

Company & Directors' Information:- E-GRADUATE INSTITUTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302TN2003PTC051577

Company & Directors' Information:- M. S. INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U80301DL2006PTC152100

Company & Directors' Information:- INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH [Active] CIN = U80904UP2012NPL048973

Company & Directors' Information:- P R EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129195

Company & Directors' Information:- V C EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129201

Company & Directors' Information:- R V EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129311

    O.A. Nos. 060/01200 to 060/01203 of 2015

    Decided On, 21 August 2017

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MS. P. GOPINATH
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicants: Karan Singla, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, None, R5 & R6, Vikram Anand, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral Order:

M.S. Sullar, Judicial Member:

1. As the identical questions of law and facts are involved, so we propose to dispose of Original Applications (OAs) Nos.No.060/01200/2015 (Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), (1st case), 060/01201/15 (Dr. Gurdeep Kaur Vs. PGIMER) (2nd case), 060/01202/15 (Rajinder Singh Vs. PGIMER) (3rd case) & 060/01203/15 (Neelam Gupta Vs. PGIMER) (4th case), by means of this common decision, in order to avoid repetition of facts, as acknowledged by the learned counsel for the parties, as well.

2. The epitome of the facts and the material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant OAs, and exposited from the record, is that all the applicants were working as Technical Assistant (X-ray), Group ‘B’, at the relevant time. Although, they were stated to have unblemished record, but overall ‘average’ remarks for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in 1st & 2nd case, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in 3rd case and for the year 2011-12 in 4th case, were conveyed to them, vide orders dated 7.7.2014 (Annexure A-1). They were asked to make representations against the adverse remarks. In pursuance thereof, the representations dated 22.7.2014, 21.7.2014, 22.7.2014 and 21.7.2014 made in four indicated cases respectively, were rejected vide impugned orders dated 8.11.2014 (Annexure A-3), by the Competent Authority. The statutory appeals dated 28.11.2014, 29.11.2014, 28.11.2014 and 5.12.2014, claimed to have been filed by them are still pending, before the Appellate Authority.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have preferred the instant OAs challenging the validity of the impugned ACRS and orders, Annexures A-1 and A-3, on variety of grounds mentioned therein, in the main petitions.

4. On the contrary, the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicants and filed the written statements, stoutly denying all the allegations and grounds, and prayed for dismissal of the OAs.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter, we are of the firm view that the instant OAs deserve to be partly accepted, in the manner, and for the reasons mentioned herein below.

6. Ex-facie, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that since the respondents have opposed the claim of the applicants, so no useful purpose would be served, now to direct the Appellate Authority to decide their statutory appeals, is not only devoid of merit but mis-placed as well.

7. What cannot possibly be disputed, here is that the adverse average remarks were conveyed to the applicants, vide impugned orders, Annexures A-1. The representations filed by them were rejected vide impugned orders, Annexure A-3, by the Competent Authority. Sequelly, the statutory appeals filed by them, Annexures A-4 are still pending and no decision has yet been taken by the Appellate Authority. The mere fact that the respondents have opposed the claim of the applicants, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, not to have a decision on the statutory appeals of the applicants, by the Appellate Authority. The opposition/comments against the claim of the applicants, in any manner, cannot possibly be treated as an order of the Appellate Authority. This matter is no longer res-integra and is now well settled.

8. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishna and Others Vs. Union of India & Others, CWP No. 12955 of 2017 decided on 2.6.2017, wherein having considered the similar matter, it was ruled as under :-

'A letter from an Advocate in response to a legal notice is not an order passed by the competent authority which is binding on the rights of the petitioner when it is adverse to his interest. A reply to the notice cannot be treated as an order of the respondent New India Insurance Company Limited, which is an authority under the State and amenable writ jurisdiction. If such a practice has grown in the respondent-company for settling rights of aggrieved persons through a reply to a notice it deserves to be a remedied and stamped out. Otherwise, the Court may be misled to treat such a reply as an order passed by the competent authority and issue process by motion. I have already deprecated such practice in a Court.

xxxxx

.....it cannot be treated as an impugned order and thus it is only an expression of opinion by a Lawyer on receiving instructions from the respondent company. In passing a fresh order, the petitioner would be heard personally or through authorized agent who can present her case properly before the competent authority.'

9. Therefore, it was the statutory duty to consider all the issues raised by the applicants in the grounds and then to decide the appeal, after affording them adequate opportunity of hearing, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, being a quasi judicial authority, is legally required to decide the matter in the right perspective and in accordance with law. Moreover, the administrative actions of the Appellate Authorities should be just, on the test of fair play and reasonableness, which is totally lacking in the present case, as the appeals have not yet been decided by the Appellate Author

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ity. 10.In the light of the aforesaid prismatic reasons, and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of hearing of the appeals, the instant OAs are partly accepted. The cases are remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the statutory appeals (Annexure A-4), after providing opportunity of being heard to the applicants and then to pass a speaking order and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
O R