Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.1727/2015
New Delhi this the 19th day of December, 2018
Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)
Nidhi Mudgal, Aged 26 years,
W/o Sh. Pankaj Sharma,
R/o House No.427, near Chattrivala,
Kuan, Khera Khurd,
New Delhi-110082
- Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S. Premchandra)
VERSUS
1. Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
Headquarter Delhi
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Regional Office, Kolkata,
EB Block, Sector-1, Lahoni,
Salt Lake, Kolkata-7000064
- Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. S. Rajappa)
O R D E R (Oral)
Ms. Nita Chowdhury:
This OA has been filed by the applicant, claiming the following reliefs:-
“8.1 To direct the respondents to produce all the records of
“APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PRIMARY TEACHER IN LIGHT
OF
MEMORANDUM
DATED
08.09.2014
VIDE
LETTER
NO.F.250563/PRT/2014-KVS(Kol)/Admn/12797” relating to the
appointment of the applicant to the post of Primary Teacher
including entire records of proceeding along with Rules for
Selection.
8.2
To Allow the O.A. and Quash the impugned Order vide letter
no.F.25053/PGT/2014/KVS
(KOL)/Admn/19989
dated
02/08.12.2014 passed by respondent no.2 (ANNEXURE A-1).
8.3
To direct the Respondents to revive the date of joining of the
applicant and to give her a fresh date for joining her duty as she
has been declared succeeded by the order dated 08.09.2014
(ANNEXURE A/2) after issuing a fresh order to her;
8.4
To pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. It is the case of the applicant that after receiving the offer of
appointment, she requested for an extension of time which was extended up to
15.11.2014 but due to the late receipt of copy of offer of appointment, i.e. on
19.11.2014, she could not join her duty on 15.11.2014. The applicant
protested this action of the respondents through representation but the
respondent no.2, vide its order dated 2/8-12-2014 has withdrawn the offer of
appointment with immediate effect and also mentioned that no further
correspondence will be entertained in this matter. Hence the present OA.
3. We heard the counsel for the respondents and perused the counter
affidavit.
4. In the counter affidavit itself, it is stated that on 08.09.2014, an
instruction was given to the applicant to report for duty at Kendriya Vidyalaya
No.2, Port Blair on or before 29.09.2014. In response to this offer of
appointment, the applicant submitted an application dated 17.09.2014 in
which she gave her acceptance and also requested for extension of joining time
on the grounds that her marriages was to be solemnized on 28.11.2014.
5. It is the contention of the respondents that the applicant did not give any
date for the period of extension. However, they themselves have shown in their
counter affidavit that she had specifically mentioned that her marriage was to
be solemnized on 28.11.2014. Despite this, they issued a letter dated
03.11.2014 asking her to join on 15.11.2014 and moreover, when the applicant
had already informed them about receipt of the said offer of appointment on
19.11.2014.
6. Quite clearly, the respondents did not have any logic as to how a person,
who has been appointed and had already informed that her marriage is on
28.11.2014, would join her posting on 15.11.2014 especially when she had
informed them that she had received the communication for joining on
15.11.2014 on 19.11.2014, i.e. after the date on which she was directed to join.
The actions of the respondents appear to be totally willful and this is no way in
which an offer of appointment should be processed and without taking into
account the genuine problem faced by the applicant. Hence, the orders
02/08.12.2014 withdrawing the offer of appointment are hereby quashed and
set aside. The respondents are given thre
