Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4485
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Geetanjali Aamber – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O. A. No. 708/2024 | O.A. No. 855/2022 | O.A. No. 2633/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rizwan, Mr. Wasil Arafat
For the Respondents: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Mr. Harish Saini
Advisory recommending preference for COVID duty workers not mandatory or enforceable absent statutory rules; eligibility per recruitment terms strictly enforced; non-qualification on merit bars appointment claim.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - Contractual engagement during COVID-19 pandemic - Communication dated 03.05.2021 recommending preference in regular appointments to healthcare workers completing 100 days of COVID duty held to be mere advisory/recommendation, not mandatory or creating enforceable right unless incorporated into statutory rules - No vested right to preference where recruitment governed by statutory rules without provision for such weightage (Paras 10, 11).
(B) Recruitment process - Eligibility conditions must be strictly adhered to as per advertisement terms - Deficiency in submission of experience certificate by closing date cannot be cured later - Participation in exam pursuant to interim order without qualifying on merit does not confer right to appointment (Paras 13, 14, 17, 19).
(C) Judicial directions - Order to 'consider' cases for preference does not mandate automatic grant; implementation under consideration at appropriate level does not amount to non-compliance (Para 12).
(D) Contractual service - No right to regularization or continuation beyond tenure; mere pandemic service does not override recruitment rules (Paras 9, 20).
Facts of the case:
Contractual lab technician engaged during COVID-19 pandemic sought quashing of notices declaring her ineligible for regular recruitment exam due to non-submission of experience certificate by closing date and direction for preference per communication dated 03.05.2021 and prior Tribunal judgment directing consideration of her case. She joined contractual service post-application for regular post, claimed 100 days COVID duty but failed to qualify exam on merit despite provisional permission to appear.
Findings of Court:
Impugned notices upheld as per recruitment terms; no enforceable right to preference from advisory communication; prior direction merely for consideration, not mandatory grant; applicant ineligible due to late document submission and did not qualify exam.
Issues: (i) Whether impugned eligibility notices liable to be quashed? (ii) Entitlement to preference per communication dated 03.05.2021? (iii) Non-compliance of prior judgment directing consideration? (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: Advisory recommendations do not confer enforceable rights absent statutory incorporation; strict compliance with recruitment eligibility mandatory; non-qualification on merit precludes claim to appointment; 'consideration' direction not equivalent to guaranteed benefit.
Result: Original Application dismissed; interim order vacated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's contractual engagement and prior tribunal directions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim to preference based on covid duty notification (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. non-binding advisory; ineligibility due to late documents (Para 5) |
| 4. advisory not enforceable; strict eligibility compliance required (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. no merit clearance; no right to appointment (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. oa dismissed; interim order vacated (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
1.By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“i. Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the notice dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 [‘Impugned Notices’]. True copy of the notice dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - A 1 (Colly)
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 applicant (although this original application was filed by 7 applicants, however, now only one person, namely, Geetanjali Aamber, is the applicant and the other applicants were deleted from the array of parties of this case by virtue of orders passed on applications moved by them), she is working as Lab Technicians on contractual basis under Respondent No.2, i.e. Lady Harding Medical College Hospital, functioning under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. She was initially appointed in May, 2021 pursuant to a recruitment notice dated 01.05.2021 (Annexure-A/4) issued during the period of COVID-19 pandemic for contractual engagement. The applicant joined service on 07.05.2021 and continued to discharge her duties as frontline health workers during the pandemic period. It is the case of the applicant that the Government of India issued a notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) providing that healthcare professionals, who had completed 100 days of COVID-related duty would be granted preference in regular government appointments. The applicant claims that she fulfilled the said condition and is thus entitled to such preference. The services of the applicant, though extended from time to time, were ultimately discontinued w.e.f. 31.03.2022 vide notice dated 28.03.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant along with other candidates approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 855/2022, wherein this Tribunal, vide interim order dated 31.03.2022, granted protection, and finally, vide judgment dated 22.12.2023, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and other candidates for grant of preference in terms of notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) within a period of eight weeks. During the pendency of the matter, the respondents proceeded with the process of regular recruitment pursuant to earlier recruitment notices dated 05.04.2021 and 21.06.2021 [Annexure- A/2 (Colly)], and issued impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] declaring the list of eligible and non-eligible candidates for the examination scheduled on 25.02.2024.
2.1 The applicant further contends that the respondents have failed to grant her preference in terms of the said notification dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure-A/5) and have also not complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 22.12.2023 in O.A. No. 855/2022 (Annexure-A/10)
2.2 Being aggrieved by the impugned notices dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] and the inaction
