news details |
|
|
| CAT quashes appointment of 151 Wireless Assistants | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 28: A Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal Comprising Judicial Member Rakesh Sagar Jain and Administrative Member Anand Mathur quashed the appointment of 151 Wireless Assistants in the Police Department.
CAT also quashed the Government Order No. 891 Home of 2018 dated 10.07.2018 is set aside as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CAT further observed that it is left to the Government to proceed further in accordance with law.
The case is of the petitioner that Principal Secretary to Government Home Department issued Government Order No. 891 Home of 2018 dated 10.07.2018 creating 151 post of Wireless Assistants and engaging 151 ousted wireless assistants (private respondents) which is challenged in the present case being violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicants also aver that the impugned order would also indicate that the candidates (private respondents) appointed have less merit than the applicants.
CAT after hearing both the sides observed that it is difficult to accept the contention that the ousted private respondents stand on a different footing from the applicants. The test is whether the applicants are equally in a disadvantageous position like the ousted respondents in matter of employment. There can be no doubt and it is not disputed that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no difference between these two classes of employees in that regard. To exclude the applicant in matter of public appointments will not, therefore, satisfy the test of intelligible differentia that distinguishes the ousted private respondents grouped together from the applicants and other persons who would have been part of the selection process.
It is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but, if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, in that case, the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one. In the instant case, we are also unable to accept the contention of the respondents that such exclusion of the employees of private establishments is justified on the ground of administrative convenience.
CAT further observed that in the present case, we do not find any intelligible differentia for classification of the unemployed class into two groups who are equally situated. Members of both groups seek public employment and cannot be divided and classified into two classes on an unintelligible principle with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, which of course would be discriminatory.
In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective is unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. In the instant case, the foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the ousted employees by the impugned Government Order of employment purpose to the exclusion of applicants who like the respondents are unemployed and took part in the selection process is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not subserve any fair and logical objective. The applicants like the ousted respondents are entitled to the benefit of public employment. It follows from the above discussion that the impugned Government Order made a classification which cannot to be justified on any reasonable basis, must be held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was also argued by counsel for applicant that all cases of direct appointments to public posts without these being advertised would be discriminatory and hit by Art. 16 of the Constitution. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that the State did not issue any advertisement in matter of public appointment and the Government Order is discriminatory towards the applicants. And the impugned order does not give any reason for its promulgation and cannot be supplemented by reasons given in the counter affidavits and placed reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill v/s The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi.
CAT further observed that it is a settled principle of law that recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules and publicity so as to enable all persons to participate in the employment drive. Deviation, as is sought to be done in the present case, from the rules allows entry to chosen few persons and deprives many respondents secured lesser marks that applicants are being given undue preference for employment to the exclusion of applicant.
CAT further said that in the present case, admittedly, appointments are being made without issuing advertisement for selection and without holding a proper selection process where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete violates the guarantee under Article 16 of the Constitution and on this ground too, the impugned Government Order deserves to be struck down. With these observations, CAT allowed the petition and Set-aside the Government Order No. 891 Home of 2018 dated 10.07.2018. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
