Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Union of India, Through The General Manager, Bilaspur – Appellant
Versus
R. Santoshi, D/o R. Narayana Rao, W/o. Shri Harish Naidu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions clubbed due to similar cause. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. previous judgments guide current cases. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 3. vacancy claims examined based on existing panels. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments against delay and suppression. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. balancing public interest in recruitment. (Para 18 , 30 , 37) |
| 6. court supports cat's directive on vacancy audit. (Para 52 , 54) |
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Since all the matters arise out of the same cause of action, and although the Union of India/Railways has filed these petitions being aggrieved by separate Original Applications, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) has adjudicated all the Original Applications analogously by a common order dated 06.03.2024 leading case bearing Original Application No.203/12/2019 and 49 analogous cases. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The Union of India/Railways appears to be aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned CAT, wherein the CAT has decided the matter on the basis of the judgment rendere
The court upheld the CAT's direction for administrative examination of vacancy positions, clarifying that candidates on the replacement list must be considered unless barred by delay or conduct.
The court affirmed the principle of providing alternative employment to medically unfit candidates, emphasizing timely action and adherence to judicial discipline.
The Tribunal erred in directing appointment from an expired selection panel, lacking jurisdiction as the application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without sufficient justification....
The court affirmed that appointment claims require direct engagement in the selection process, emphasizing no valid grievances from unlisted candidates based on prior judicial findings.
Point of law : If there is some minor irregularity in selection of a candidate but if such a candidate has put in a number of years of service, it may not be advisable to disturb his appointment.
Employees selected under the same process maintain seniority regardless of appointment delays, and delays not attributable to them cannot deprive them of benefits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
