Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 15 (ALL)

AMIT KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2008-01-03

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, U.K.DHAON

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Subhas Vidhyarthi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 5 to 10 and Sri Gyan Prakas Pandey, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 by which the original application preferred by the respondents No. 5 to 10 was allowed and the order dated 28.4.2005 by which the application for recalling of the judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 was rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.4.2005 an advertisement was published by which the applications were invited to fill up seven posts of Lower Division Clerk in Army Medical Corps Records, Lucknow. The petitioners as well as private-respondents applied for the appointment on the said posts of Lower Division Clerk. The selection was held and thereafter the result was declared on 4.6.2004 which was also displayed on the notice board. The private respondents who were unsuccessful challenged the selection by moving original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. The original application was contested by Union of India and others. The Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties allowed the original application moved by the private-respondents and quashed the selection by the judgment and order dated 1.11.2004. The petitioners thereafter moved an application for recalling the judgment and order dated 1.11.2004, which was rejected by the order dated 28.04.2005. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that although the result was declared on 4.6.2004 but even then the petitioners were not impleaded by the respondents No. 5 to 10 in the original application and the impugned judgment and order was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal without affording any opportunity to the petitioners who are duly selected candidates. He further submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 is in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that no illegality was committed by the Department in the selection and the original application moved by the unsuccessful candidates was legally not maintainable. 5. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that there was no illegality in the selection and the Tribunal in a most arbitrary and illegal manner has set-aside the selection. 6. 5. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that there was no illegality in the selection and the Tribunal in a most arbitrary and illegal manner has set-aside the selection. 6. Sri Subhas Vidhyarthi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 10 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 and the Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned Counsel for the Department has quashed the selection which was held in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. He further submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as no right was accrued to the petitioners on the basis of the selection. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. It is the admitted case of the parties that in response to the advertisement dated 24.4.2004 the petitioners as well as private-respondents No. 5 to 10 appeared in the selection. The petitioners have alleged that the result of the selection was declared on 4.6.2004 and it was also displayed on the notice board. The original application was preferred by the respondents No. 5 to 10 on 5/15.6.2004 when they were declared unsuccessful in the selection. The petitioners who were selected candidates for the posts of Lower Division Clerk were necessary party before the Central Administrative Tribunal but they were not impleaded as opposite parties in the original application. The impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal without affording any opportunity to the petitioners who were selected candidates. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in violation of principles of natural justice. It was the duty of the respondents No. 5 to 10 to implead the petitioners as respondents in the original application as a valuable right was accrued to the petitioners when the result was declared on 4.6.2004 before filing the original application. We are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 is legally not sustainable. 9. It was the duty of the respondents No. 5 to 10 to implead the petitioners as respondents in the original application as a valuable right was accrued to the petitioners when the result was declared on 4.6.2004 before filing the original application. We are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 is legally not sustainable. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2004 and the order dated 28.4.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to decide afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioners. ———