Judgment :-

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Delay Condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7816 of 2011 dated 21st January, 2013, whereby the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, in O.A.No.2164 of 2011 dated 12th October, 2011 has been quashed and set aside, has been challenged before this Court.

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell are as under:

There was a vacancy in the cadre of Director

(Finance) in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and for filling the vacancy, an advertisement had been published by the Public Enterprises Selection Board on 3rd January, 2008. Somehow, nothing happened in pursuance of the said advertisement and therefore, another advertisement was published on 13th/14th November, 2008. In pursuance of the second advertisement, several applications had been received and ultimately the Public Enterprises Selection Board found two candidates suitable for appointment to the post in question. The first name was of Mrs. Anita Soni and the second name of the respondent herein.

5. After necessary scrutiny and upon getting report from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), it was found that Mrs. Anita Soni was not eligible for appointment to the post whereas the respondent, who was working as General Manager (Finance) with the MTNL, was facing an inquiry initiated by the CBI and therefore, no one was appointed from the said list.

6. As the respondent had not been appointed to the post in question, he had made a representation to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) so that his case might be reconsidered. The representation made by the respondent was considered and rejected by the ACC.

7. Thus, once again the post in question had been advertised on 19th March, 2010 and at that time the respondent herein did not apply for the post.

8. As the respondent was not given appointment to the post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13th/14th November, 2008, he had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Ultimately, the petition filed by the respondent had been dismissed and he was asked to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing an O.A.

9. The respondent, thereafter, filed an O.A. No.261 of 2011 before the CAT praying that he should be appointed to the post of the Director (Finance) in the BSNL. The said O.A. was also dismissed by an order dated 12th October, 2011 as the CAT found that the process of taking decision with regard to appointment to the post in question was flawless. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent had filed W.P. (C ) No. 7816 of 2011 before the High Court.

10. Subsequently, the inquiry initiated against the respondent by the CBI had been closed in pursuance of an order dated 22nd December, 2012 passed by the Special Judge, CBI. After the inquiry initiated by the CBI was closed, the impugned judgment was delivered on 21st January, 2013 by the High Court in the above- mentioned writ petition filed by the respondent. As at the relevant time no inquiry was pending against the respondent, by the impugned order, the appellants have been directed to appoint the respondent as Director (Finance) in the BSNL immediately after superannuation of an officer who was working as Director (Finance) in the BSNL at the relevant time. The post in question was not vacant at the relevant time and it was to become vacant on 30th November, 2013, as the person holding the said post was to be superannuated on 30th November, 2013.

11. Being aggrieved by the aforestated direction given by the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the appellants praying that the impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi, giving direction to the appellants to appoint the respondent as Director (Finance) in the BSNL be quashed and set aside.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the BSNL had mainly submitted that the respondent had submitted his applica