Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 169 (PNJ)

Jaideep Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2008-01-23

HEMANT GUPTA, MOHINDER PAL

body2008
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal) dated 4.2.2002 and the orders passed in the Review Petition. 2. The controversy in the present writ petition pertains to appointment of respondent No. 5 as Labour Welfare Officer with the Chandigarh Administration, Printing and Stationery Department. The Rules applicable for appointment to such post are the Punjab Welfare Officers (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The controversy revolves around Rule-4 (bb), as inserted in the Rules vide Chandigarh Administration notification dated 20.7.1979. 3. The said Rule reads as under: 4. Qualifications: A person shall not be eligible for appointment as L.W.O. unless, he: a) xx xx xx b) xx xx xx bb) has two years experience or Labour Welfare Work, Industrial Relation or Personnel Management in an Organization employing substantial Labour force; c) xx xx xx. 4. It was decided by the Department that the aforesaid post of the Labour Welfare Officer shall be filled up amongst the departmental candidates. The petitioner, respondent No. 5 and one Sham Sunder Sharma were the candidates who had applied for the said post. The Committee constituted to consider the candidature of all the aforesaid three candidates, in its meeting held on 2.1.1995, recommended Shri Om Parkash Sharmarespondent No. 5 for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare Officer, whereas, the petitioner was not found to be experienced in the opinion of the Committee. 5. The learned Tribunal has considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and vide a detailed speaking order, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and held that respondent No. 5 was qualified and the petitioner is estopped to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5, as he has been considered and found not eligible to be called for the purpose of interview for the post of Labour Welfare Officer. 6. Today, Shri Shri Kapil Kakkar, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 states that the Administration has constituted a Sub Committee to consider the claim of the candidates for the appointment of the Labour Welfare Officer. 6. Today, Shri Shri Kapil Kakkar, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 states that the Administration has constituted a Sub Committee to consider the claim of the candidates for the appointment of the Labour Welfare Officer. The minutes of the meeting of said Committee shows that qualifications of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 5 were considered in detail and after such consideration, it was found that petitioner is not having the requisite experience in terms of the Rules. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. There is no irregularity in the decision making process of the Sub Committee, nor any irregularity has been pointed out. Whether a candidate is experienced for appointment or not was in the exclusive consideration of the Sub Committee. Such consideration is not shown to be arbitrary or vitiated in any manner. 8. Since all the relevant factors have been considered, the decision of the Sub Committee cannot be said to be illegal and unwarranted which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.