JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences, (‘RMRIMS’ for short), Patna and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) have preferred this writ application through their respective Directors, assailing a judgment and order dated 04.08.2017 passed in O.A. No. 050/00111 of 2017 by a Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed with a direction to petitioner No. 1 to issue an appointment letter forthwith, appointing the petitioner against the post of Research Assistant/Technical Assistant.

2. A Review Application was preferred by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2017 giving rise to R.A. No. 00/50/0050 of 2017, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 30.10.2017, which is also under challenge in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. We have heard, Mr. P.K. Shahi and Mr. Gautam Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. Rohit Mishra and Mr. Vikas Jha, learned advocates and Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 1.

4. It is deemed apt to recount the admitted facts of the case first, before addressing the issues. The RMRI had invited applications for appointment against the two posts of Research Assistant (U.R.) in the employment news of 11th July, 2009. The designation of the post was subsequently changed to Technical Assistant (Research) (U.R.).

5. Respondent No. 1 was one of the aspirants for the said post, written examination of which was held on 18.08.2012 and viva-voce test on 03.01.2013. Respondent No. 1 was placed at Sl. No. 3 of the merit list. Appointment letters were issued to two candidates out of which one joined on 11.07.2013. The other did not join and applied for extension of time. On his request, the joining time was extended for him. However, he was not allowed extension beyond 14.08.2014. The offer of appointment issued to the non-joining candidate stood cancelled.

6. The respondent, who was at Sl. No. 3 in the merit list claims that pursuant to an information sought by his father under the Right to Information Act in 2016, an information was received to the effect that the offer of appointment in favour of the candidate at Sl. No. 1 was cancelled because of non-joining; as the panel was not alive; no appointment could be made on the basis of the said panel. The name of respondent No. 1 was neither in the wait list nor in the list of selected candidates; the merit list was not published in the newspaper nor put on the website, in the absence of any practice prevalent at the said point of time.

7. Respondent No. 1 further claims to have made a representation thereafter on 17.08.2017 before the authorities for issuance of an appointment letter in his favour against the post which had remained vacant because of non-joining of the candidate at Sl. No. 1. He, thereafter, approached the Tribunal by making an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 giving rise to O.A. No. 111 of 2017, seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) To issue an appropriate order commanding upon the respondent No. 3 authority to produce the recruitment cancellation order vide RMRI/ICMR/R /153/237/Estt.1113/2014-15, dated 27.10.2014 whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Research Assistant now redesignated Technical Assistant (Research) has been cancelled and upon production to set aside the aforementioned order dated 27.10.2014 and also order to produce appointment entire file of RA to assess the malafide intention of the administration.

(ii) To issue an appropriate order commanding upon the respondent No. 3, authority to appoint the petitioner as Research Assistant now redesignated Technical Assistant/ Research