Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2440 (PAT)

Union of India v. Krishna Ballabh

2011-12-09

T.MEENA KUMARI, VIKASH JAIN

body2011
ORDER The present appeal is filed against the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11212 of 2005. The respondent being petitioner is filed writ petition aggrieved by the inaction of the appellant B.S.N.L. in not issuing the appointment letter for the post of Junior Telecom Officer-2002 as he was successful in the examination held on 9.6.2002. 2. It is the contention of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that even though an allegation was made against him on the ground that he had adopted unfair means in the examination for the post of J.T.O. in 2002 and the same was found not true during the course of enquiry. The appellant B.S.N.L. submits that a C.B.I. Case No. R.C. 43A/97/Pat. is pending against him and by the order of the D.G.M. (Vigilance) dated 03.12.2003 recruitment of the petitioner-respondent herein B.S.N.L. was kept in abeyance on account of regular C.B.I. case is pending against him. The matter has been contested by the B.S.N.L. 3. The learned Single Judge has observed that the C.B.I. case pertains to an incident that offence occurred relating to the student carrier as Engineering student which was with reference to adopt manipulation and use of unfair means. The learned Single Judge having found that it is a new ground inserted by the B.S.N.L. to keep the appointment of the petitioner in abeyance, has quashed the order of the appellant’s authority and directed the department to issue order for training of the respondents and on completion of the training period issue appointment letter for the post of Junior Telecom Officer. Aggrieved by the same the B.S.N.L. has chosen to file the appeal. 4. It is contended by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the B.S.N.L. that as the C.B.I. case No. R.C. 43A/97/Pat. is pending against the respondent, the department thought it fit to keep the order of training in abeyance till disposal of that case and, therefore, there cannot be any infirmity in the order passed by the B.S.N.L. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed his contention stating that during the course of enquiry nothing has come out with reference to adopting the malpractices in the examination for recruitment to the post of J.T.O.-2002, the B.S.N.L. has come up with new ground of pendency of the criminal case i.e. C.B.I. Case no. R.C. 43A/97/Pat. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed his contention stating that during the course of enquiry nothing has come out with reference to adopting the malpractices in the examination for recruitment to the post of J.T.O.-2002, the B.S.N.L. has come up with new ground of pendency of the criminal case i.e. C.B.I. Case no. R.C. 43A/97/Pat. against the respondents and has not issued order of training and also the appointment letter. Hence, the learned Single Judge has found fault the action of the B.S.N.L. and therefore, has quashed the order and directed the B.S.N.L. to issue order of training as well as appointment letter. It has also been contended by the learned senior counsel that merely pendency of the C.B.I. case will not entitle the B.S.N.L. to stop issuance of order of training as well as appointment letter to the respondent, but however we are not convinced with such argument of the learned senior counsel as it is a fact that C.B.I. Case No. R.C. 43A/97/Pat. is still pending in the file of C.B.I. Patna in which the respondent is shown as one of the accused. We are of the opinion that the respondent could not have a right to seek issuance of order of training or appointment letter. 6. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that it would suffice if a direction is issued to the C.B.I. to dispose of the C.B.I. Case no. R.C. 43A/97/Pat., because it is an old case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. We also make it clear that all the parties shall co-operate the C.B.I. in disposal of the case. 7. Till such time order of the learned Single Judge shall not become operative. However, we make it clear that if the respondent could not succeed in C.B.I. Case No. R.C. 43A/97/Pat. then the order of the learned Single Judge stands set aside. 8. With the above observation this L.P.A. stand disposed of.