IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 09.12.2025 NARINDER SUDAN ...Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Praveen Chander-Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents-UOI.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

CM-17973-CWP-2025 The present application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for fixing the actual date of hearing of the present writ petition as the case was heard and admitted on 30.03.2015.

Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the present application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the main writ petition (CWP-5903-2015) is taken up on board for hearing today itself.

C WP-5903-2015

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No. 5- Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) with effect from the year 1992 instead of 2004 when the other candidates including one Satish Rawat pursuant to the same advertisement dated 04.04.1992 were appointed to the post of Inspector (Customs & Central Excise) against sports quota, has been dismissed.

2. Certain facts needs to be noted for the correct appreciation of the issue at hand.

3. An advertisement for making the recruitment to the post of Inspectors (Customs & Central Excise) against sports-quota, was issued by the respondents on 04.04.1992. Out of the total advertised posts, two posts were earmarked for sportsperson relating to the sport of Football. After the selection process, the interviews of the selected candidates were held on 03.08.1992 and one Satish Rawat was given appointment to the post in question under the sports quota in the field of Football on 01.09.1992, whereas, the petitioner was declined the said benefit of selection/recruitment. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said selection/appointment of Satish Rawat, immediately in the year 1992 by filing an original application No. 1018-CH-92 on the ground that the said Satish Rawat had failed in the field test and was thus not eligible for the interview, but still he has been selected for the post in question and vide order dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13), the said original application of the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal and the selection of said Satish Rawat for the post in question was set-aside and direction was also issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner for the appointment to the post in question.

4. The review application number 35 of 2000 was filed by the department and Satish Rawat against the said order of the Tribunal dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13) in this Court, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide separate orders both dated 03.11.2000.

5. Against the order of quashing of the selection dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure A-13), a civil writ petition bearing No. 15858 of 2000 was filed by Satish Rawat, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2000. Keeping in view the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, Satish Rawat was relieved from service vide Establishment order No.

71/2001 dated 07.06.2001.

6. As the claim also related to the appointment of the petitioner to the post in question, but he was not being given the said benefits, the petitioner again filed an Original Application bearing number 1069/CH/2001before the Tribunal for considering his claim. In the meantime, in a civil appeal No. 133 of 2001 filed by Satish Rawat challenging termination of his services keeping in view the order passed by the Tribunal which was uphled by this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed an order dated 12.02.2002 that both Satish Rawat as well as the petitioner herein be appoin