Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of apparent error and does not extend to reinstating employment post-candidature cancellation due to delays.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

Prayer

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench, in OA No.051/00428/2023 has been assailed, by which, the original application has been held to be devoid of merits and accordingly, has declined to pass positive direction to direct the respondents to accept the joining of the present petitioner.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, as also, the impugned order, required to be enumerated, which reads as under.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was selected for the post of Auditor in the Defence Accounts Department and offer of appointment on 26.11.2018 was sent to him.

4. According to offer of appointment, he had to report for joining within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The writ petitioner has made request for extension of joining time and vide letter dated 20.02.2019, extension of joining time of six months was granted but he has not joined the said post on the extended time.

5. Thereafter, he has made another request for extension of joining time and at that time, vide order dated 18.06.2019, three months’ time, up to 26.08.2019, was granted. Again, he had not joined the post and on 10.02.2020, dossier of the petitioner was returned back by the respondents to Staff Selection Commission.

6. The writ petitioner/applicant, thereafter, on 02.02.2021, sent petition/application addressed to the CDA and his said application was referred to the CDA Guwahati by the Sr. Accounts Officer, vide letter dated 11.02.2021, and pursuant thereto, letter dated 26.02.2021, was sent to the petitioner/applicant stating that his candidature nomination has been automatically cancelled as he has failed to join his duty within the stipulated time.

7. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, in pursuant to the advertisement floated by the Recruitment Agency to the post of Auditor in the Defence Accounts Department, has found to be successful based upon the performance in the recruitment process.

8. The recommendation made with respect to the appointment of the writ petitioner has been accepted by the competent authority, thereafter, the offer of appointment was issued on 26.11.2018 but the petitioner for one reason or the other, has not joined the said post.

9. The ground has been taken that his father was having some cardiac issue, therefore, an application was made for extension of time. The same was extended up to the month of August, 2019 but even then, he has not joined the service, thereafter, Pandemic Covid-19 has come and hence, the delay has been caused. Representations were filed and the same were also rejected, thereafter, the petitioner/applicant has approached the tribunal by filing original application under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

10. The respondents have been called upon. The respondents have taken the ground that after lapse of extended period, the joining cannot be accepted to the post of Auditor.

11. The learned Tribunal has accepted the opposition made on behalf of the respondents and has dismissed the original application, against which, the present petition has been filed.

Arguments of the writ petitioner

12. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the gro