No indefeasible right to appointment from waiting list; employer bound to rectify reservation errors; process upheld absent proven mala fides; no relief for stale claims sans vacancy.

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

By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“a) DIRECTIONS to issue upon the respondent authorities directing them to issue joining letter to the Applicant with immediate effect while extending the terms of contract from the date of joining.

b) DIRECTION to issue upon the respondent authorities directing them/their agents and/or subordinates to produce the records of the case and on such production being made to render conscionable justice by passing necessary orders thereon;

c) Costs of and incidental to this application;

d) And/or to pass such other or further order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper;”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. As stated by the applicant, the present Original Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in not issuing the appointment letter for the post of Junior Assistant despite availability of vacancy and the applicant being otherwise eligible. She further states that the respondent No. 2 issued a vacancy circular vide Advertisement No. 01/Contract/FEB/2017 (Annexure A-1) for filling up various Group „C‟ posts including the post of Junior Assistant. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the applicant applied for the post of Junior Assistant and appeared in the written examination conducted on 16.12.2017 under Roll No. 27196. The applicant successfully qualified the written examination and was thereafter called for the skill test, which was qualifying in nature, and the applicant duly appeared in the same.

2.1 Despite qualifying both stages of the selection process, the name of the applicant was not included in the final merit list (Annexure A- 4), whereas another candidate having equal marks was granted appointment without any reasonable justification. The applicant, thereafter, sought information [Annexure A-5 (Colly)] under the RTI Act regarding her marks, merit position, and waiting list, but the respondents failed to provide satisfactory information. Subsequently, upon receipt of certain RTI replies (Annexure A-6), it was revealed that the applicant‟s name appeared in the waiting list and that the recruitment process was under examination by the Vigilance Department of the respondents. It further came to the knowledge of the applicant that one post under the General Category was lying vacant, however, the respondents failed to fill the same and did not consider the case of the applicant despite her position in the waiting list. The applicant made several representations and complaints [Annexure A-8 (Colly)] to the respondents and higher authorities highlighting the irregularities in the recruitment process and seeking redressal, but no effective action was taken. The applicant submits that even after lapse of considerable time, the respondents neither issued appointment letter to the applicant nor provided any cogent reason for denial, despite availability of vacancy and eligibility of the applicant.

2.2 The impugned inaction of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as similarly placed candidates have been granted appointment on