ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated 29.11.2014 passed by the respondents No.2 (Annexure A-3) in Compilation

1 to this original application.

ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to give appointment the applicant from the date when he was selected w.e.f. 1.5.2009 along with consequential benefits and with arrears.

iii) To issue order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2009 for selection to the post of Safaiwala Group ‘D’ post, applicant applied. The qualification mentioned in the advertisement was shown as Class 5^th pass and knowledge of Hindi. Applicant appeared in the written examination conducted on 02.03.2009 by the respondent No.3, in which he was successful. After passing the written test, applicant was called for document verification vide letter dated 01.05.2009. In pursuance of aforesaid letter, applicant has reported and submitted all requisite documents before the authority concerned. Applicant also submitted police verification report. After verification of police report, applicant sent for medical board. Applicant has passed all the examination conducted by the respondents but joining report has not been issued without rhyme and reason. Applicant sought information under Right to Information Act to the respondent No. 3 and he was replied vide letter dated 03.04.2010 in which it has been stated that as per recommendation of 6^th Central Pay Commission and under the new Rule of 2011, the minimum qualification for recruitment of Group ‘D’ is matriculation. Thereafter applicant was informed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2014 that he could not be given appointment on the post of Safaiwala as his qualification is only 5^th class. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, applicant preferred the present original application.

3. Respondents filed counter reply, inter alia contesting the case of the applicant on the ground that in pursuance of the advertisement for appointment of Safaiwala, applicant applied and had been provisionally selected subject to production of medical fitness. In the meantime, with the recommendations of 6^th CPC, the minimum education qualification for a candidate has been mandatorily increased to 10^th pass. This was applicable for Group ‘D’ posts Thus, as per direction of the Army Headquarter, the recruitment process has been stopped.

4. We have heard Shri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K, Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record as well as written submission filed on behalf of applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the selection has not been formally cancelled, as no official cancellation order has been issued by the respondents. Minimum qualification required for the post advertised was "5th pass or equivalent." Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this criterion cannot be altered in mid-process. The applicant was provisionally selected and was expecting an appointment letter. However, the respondents stated that the minimum educational qualification was revised to "10th pass" based on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon following case laws:-

(i) Tej Prakash Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in 2013 (4) SCC page 540;

(ii) Ghanshyam Das Vs. Union of India and others decided on 30.01.2023 in OA No. 1611/2011 by CAT, Allahabad Bench.

6. In rebuttal learned counsel for the respondents argued