Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 3435/2024 Reserved on:- 12.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 08.01.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Dubey Purendra Chintamani, age -34 years, S/o Sh.Dubey Chintamani Balram, 9-661, 2nd Floor, Digvijay Bhawan, MHB Colony, Borivali, West Mumbai, Pin – 400091.

Post – Chemical Assistant (Group –B)

...Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Sudip Lodha and Ms. Shattika for Mr. Narender Kumar)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 2. The Director (RL), Central Revenues Control Laboratory, Hillside Road, Pusa Campus, New Delhi – 110012.

3. The Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12, Lodhi Road, Gokalpuri, CGO Complex, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi – 110003.

…Respondent (By Advocate: Mr. S. K. Tripathi for Mr. Gyanendra Singh)

ANKIT ANKIT ORDER Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue an order or direction to set aside / quash the order issued vide S.S./C.No.49-confl./2020 dated 03.08.2021 by Mr. Sandeep Prakash, Director, CRCL, New Delhi; or (b) Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to give appointment to the Applicant as being a thoroughly eligible and successful candidate and recommended by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the appointment, in terms of the Recruitment Notice / Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted Post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015; and (c) Pass such further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a duly selected and recommended candidate of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the post of Chemical Assistant pursuant to Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 and possessed more than the requisite two years’ experience prior to the cut-off date, which experience certificates were part of OA No. 1196/2020 and were also forwarded by SSC to the Respondent Department. Despite a specific direction of this Tribunal dated 04.11.2020 to verify the applicant’s experience, the ANKIT ANKIT respondents deliberately failed to comply, initially rejecting the claim vide order dated 17.02.2021, which was later withdrawn after tendering unconditional apology, and thereafter again denying appointment by passing a detailed order dated 03.08.2021. The contempt petition was dismissed on 14.02.2024, leading the applicant to approach the Hon’ble High Court, which granted liberty to file the present Original Application. Hence, the present OA is filed challenging the continued denial of appointment despite clear eligibility and subsisting vacancies.

2.1. Learned counsel further contended that the action of the respondents in refusing to verify and consider the applicant’s experience certificates was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the applicant admittedly possessed the essential qualification and experience prior to the cut-off date. It was argued that the respondents acted in contempt of the binding directions of this Tribunal and contrary to settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria & ors. Vs. Dr. C. Mathew & ors. (1980 2 SCC 752), Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and others (2005 9 SCC 779), and Food Corporation of India v.

ANKIT ANKIT Rimjhim (AIR 2019 SC 1954), wherein, it was held that possession of qualification before the cut-off date is the essential requirement and mode or timing of proof is only ancillary. It was further contended that SSC being the final authority had already recommended the applican