Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1512 (GAU)

Bhaskar Pathak v. Union of India

2017-12-06

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. The writ petitioners in WP(C) 1177/2016, who are also the review petitioners in Review Petition No. 120/2015, are represented by Mr. R, Mazumar, Advocate. The respondents in both the cases are represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant S.GI. 2. The issues for adjudication have substantially narrowed down in view of the suggestion put forward by Mr. Mazumdar and fairly accepted by Mr. Keyal. As regards the facts of the case, it would be suffice to say that the matter pertains to appointment to the post of Driver in the Assam Postal Circle, Department of Post, Govt. of India, which was initiated vide Advertisement of 2011. The petitioners herein qualified in the Ability test as well as in the Driving test held on 25.09.2011 and 26.09.2011, also freshly conducted on 03.12.2011. Their names were empanelled in the final Select List dated 14.12.2011 which, however, was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2015 in O.A. No. 293/2011, instituted by the private respondents herein. While quashing the said Select List dated 14.12.2011, the Tribunal made no comments regarding the Driving Test held on 03.12.2011 and made it clear that the departmental authority will go ahead with the recruitment process in terms of the Advertisement of 2011. In other words, the Tribunal only interfered with the Select List dated 14.12.2011 without interfering with the selection process upto the stage of driving test which was conducted on 03.12.2011. 3. Pursuant thereto, the Union of India preferred WP(C) 3749/2015 with prayer that in view of subsequent developments with further vacancies having arisen, the department be allowed to invite fresh applications from eligible candidates to participate in a fresh selection process. The prayer was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 15.07.2015 by making it clear that in order to overcome any possibility of the applicants who had responded to the earlier Advertisement dated 24.06.2011 becoming over aged, the applications that had been submitted by them should be considered as valid applications and they be also called to participate in the fresh selection process. Incidentally, the writ petitioners herein who impleaded themselves as party respondents before the Tribunal, were not made party respondents in the writ petition filed by the Union of India. Incidentally, the writ petitioners herein who impleaded themselves as party respondents before the Tribunal, were not made party respondents in the writ petition filed by the Union of India. As the order of this Court dated 15.07.2015 permitted a fresh selection, which practically erased their valid selection upto the stage of driving test and the said order having been passed on a writ petition where they were not impleaded as respondents despite being necessary parties, the related Review Petition No. 120/2015 came to be filed. By Order dated 16.12.2015 passed in the review petition, twelve posts of Drivers were ordered to be kept vacant. 4. It is stated by Mr. Keyal that pursuant to Order dated 15.07.2015 passed in the aforesaid WP(C) 3749/2015, selection and appointment to the post of Driver have since stood complete. However, in view of the order passed in the review petition, eleven posts of drivers have not been filled up as out of the twelve writ petitioners, one writ petitioner responded and had participated in the fresh selection process and got duly selected and appointed. This is the position as it stands today. 5. Mr. Mazumdar submits that the writ petitioners are not basically aggrieved of the order passed by the Tribunal, in as much as, the selection upto the stage of driving test conducted on 03.12.2011 was not interfered with. It is stated that the petitioners were expecting that the selection process pursuant to the Advertisement dated 24.06.2011 would be completed in terms of the directions of the Tribunal. The petitioners were totally taken aback on coming to learn of the Order dated 15.07.2015 passed in WP(C) 3749/2015 where direction was made to hold selection afresh. Be that as it may, Mr. Mazumdar submits that since eleven posts of Drivers have been kept vacant in terms of the order passed by this Court in the Review Petition and since there are no material to question their valid selection upto the stage of driving test, it would meet the ends of justice if the respondents gives due consideration for their appointment, even by subjecting them to a fresh driving test exercise. This suggestion of Mr. Mazumdar appears to be reasonable, having regard to the facts of the case, which have also found favour with Mr. Keyal. 6. This suggestion of Mr. Mazumdar appears to be reasonable, having regard to the facts of the case, which have also found favour with Mr. Keyal. 6. In view of the broad agreement arrived at between the parties, as indicated above, this writ petition stands disposed of on the premise that the respondent authority shall conduct a fresh driving test only in respect of the petitioners herein and consider their appointment to the post of Driver subject to their qualifying in a driving test Let the entire exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today. 7. In view of this order passed in the Writ Petition, as above, no order is passed in the Review Petition and the same is treated as closed.