Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4484
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Rajni – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O. A. No. 866/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rizwan, Mr. Wasil Arafat
For the Respondents: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Mr. Harish Saini, Mr. Awanish Kumar
Recommendatory COVID duty preference advisory creates no enforceable right for contractual workers; no claim to alter completed merit-based recruitment post-unqualified participation.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Contractual engagement of healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic - Advisory dated 03.05.2021 recommending preference in regular appointments for those completing 100 days of COVID duty - Advisory is recommendatory, not mandatory or legally enforceable - No vested right to preference or regularization arises from contractual engagement co-terminus with scheme (Paras 9, 10, 11).
(B) Recruitment process - Participation in selection without protest and failure to qualify on merit - No right to seek alteration of recruitment terms post-examination or conclusion of process - Eligibility conditions cannot be relaxed or recruitment notices amended after process completion (Paras 13, 14, 17, 18).
(C) Tribunal directions - Order to 'consider' claim for preference does not mandate grant or rewriting recruitment rules - No willful non-compliance where matter under policy consideration (Para 15).
(D) Limitation - Challenge to recruitment notices issued 31 months prior hit by delay and laches (Para 19).
Facts of the case:
Applicants, engaged as contractual lab technicians during COVID-19 under emergency scheme ending 31.03.2022, claimed preference in regular recruitment per advisory dated 03.05.2021 and prior Tribunal order directing consideration. They participated in examination on 25.02.2024 without qualifying on merit, seeking modification of recruitment notices.
Findings of Court:
No enforceable right to preference; recruitment process completed without qualification by applicants; prior directions only for consideration, not mandatory grant; notices not modifiable post-process.
Issues: (i) Entitlement to modify recruitment notices for preference; (ii) Non-compliance with prior Tribunal order; (iii) Enforceable right based on advisory dated 03.05.2021 (Para 8).
Ratio Decidendi: Contractual workers under time-bound scheme acquire no regularization right; advisory merely recommends consideration subject to rules; merit-based selection immutable post-participation and failure; appellate interference limited to perversity (Paras 9-18).
Result: Original Application dismissed. Interim orders vacated. (Para 20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' covid duty and prior tribunal order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-compliance with preference notification (Para 4) |
| 3. limitation, advisory nature, no merit qualification (Para 5) |
| 4. communication advisory, no enforceable right (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. no merit, cannot alter completed process (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. no non-compliance, participation bars challenge (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. oa dismissed for lack of merit (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
“i. Issue an appropriate direction or order directing the Respondents to Modify/Amend the Recruitment Notice No. F. Direct recruitment/Admn.II/2021/2909 dated 05.04.2021 & No. F. Direct recruitment/Admn. II/2021/5483 dated 21.06.2021 and the subsequent notice F. No. A/820/2023-RR/664 dated 04.12.2023 & F. No. A/820/2023-RR/805 dated 08.02.2024 [„Impugned Notices‟] to the extent of grant of preference to Applicants in terms of the notification dated 03.05.2021 in compliance of Judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in Original Application No. 855 of 2022.
ii. Issue an appropriate direction or order directing the Respondents to Implement the notification dated 03.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 i.e., Union of India qua preference which has to be given to the Applicants who have rendered 100 days of Pandemic related duty in compliance of Judgment dated
22.12.2023 passed in Original Application No. 855 of 2022.
iii. Pass any further order as this Hon‟ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicants, (although this original application was filed by 4 applicants, however, now one person namely, Kaushal Kishor, is not a party in this O.A. by virtue of order passed on application moved by the such applicant and remaining 03 applicants are there in the array of parties), who were engaged as Lab Technicians on contractual basis in Respondent No. 2, , i.e., Lady Harding Medical College, Hospital under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In 2021, during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Respondent No. 2 issued a recruitment notice dated 01.05.2021 (Annexure-A/4) for contractual engagement of Lab Technicians for a period of three months. The applicants were duly selected and appointed on 06.05.2021 (Annexure-A/4) and joined their duties on 07.05.2021. Their services were extended from time to time till 31.03.2022. Meanwhile, the Government of India issued a Notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5), providing that healthcare workers who completed 100 days of COVID duty would be given preference in regular government appointments. Despite rendering COVID duties, the services of the applicants were terminated vide notice dated 28.03.2022. Aggrieved, they approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 855/2022, wherein interim protection was granted and later, by judgment dated 22.12.2023, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant preference to the applicants in regular recruitment in terms of the notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5)
2.1 The respondents issued recruitment notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] and later notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/2 (Colly)], declaring lists of eligible candidates and proceeding with recruitment. However, no preference was granted to the applicants, allegedly in violation of the Tribunal‟s earlier directions. The applicants, though declared eligible, appeared in the examination held on 25.02.2024. Being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the Tribunal‟s judgment and denial of preference, they have filed the present O.A. seeking directions to modify the impugned recruitment notices and grant them preference in regular appointment in terms of the notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5)
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the responde
