LexCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, N.S.S.O. & ORS. versus BISWA BHUSAN NANDI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 12 S.C.R. 1060 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, N.S.S.O. & ORS. v. BISWA BHUSAN NANDI (Civil Appeal No. 5304 of 2008) AUGUST 29, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law - Appointment - Qualification of graduation for Central Government Group C post not requiring technical c or professional experience - Relaxed for matriculate ex- servicemen with 15 years of defence service - Candidate-ex- servicemen applied and qualified for the post, but denied appointment - Central Administrative Tribunal upholding denial - High Court holding him eligible for appointment - 0 Direction to the employer to accommodate him to the post applied for or alternative suitable post within specified time - Employer seeking extension of time with assurance to Court to accommodate the candidate - On appeal, held: In view of the exceptions carved out, the eligibility clause and since the E post is non-technical, employer cannot be permitted to come out of the assurance made to the court- Ex-servicemen (Re- employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 - r.6. By a Notification, ex-servicemen having Matriculate F qualification with 15 years of defence service were made eligible for being considered for appointment to Central Government Group-C post for which essential qualification was graduation and where technical or professional experience was not essential. Vacancy was ~'. r .. G notified by the appellant for the post of Data Entry Operator, Grade B. Respondent who was a Matriculate ;-~ and having 15 years of defence service, applied for the same. He qualified in the written and viva-voce test, but was denied appointment. His application challenging the H 1060 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, N.S.S.O. & ORS. v. 1061 BISWA BHUSAN NANDI ---~ order denying appointment was dismissed by Central A Administrative Tribunal holding that since the requirement for the post notified was not graduation simplicitor but with Mathematics or Statistics, the respondent could not have been considered for appointment. High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and B ~ directed the appellant to accommodate the respondent for the post for which he had applied or on a suitable alternative post within specified period. Appellant sought extension of time for compliance of its order giving assurance to the Court that the respondent shall be c accommodated. Such extension of time was sought from ' High Court, even after they had approached this Court J challenging its order. ' Dismissing the appeal, the Court ' HELD: 1.1 For all intent and purport, an assurance D I~ • had been given to the High Court that its order shall be complied with. The promise made was absolute and unequivocal in nature. It is not a proper case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the E Constitution. Filing of an application for extension of time to comply with the order of the High Court by itself would not be a bar to the appellant for filing a special leave ,,. petition, but in the instant case, an assurance was given to the High Court that the respondent shall be 1 accommodated, despite filing of the special leave petition. F [Paras 14, 15] [1068,8-C; 1067,G-H; 1068,A] 1.2 In view of the exceptions carved out, the eligibility clause and as the post is non-technical in nature and, thus, no experience on technical side was necessary, G '.M, the appellant should not be permitted to come out of the representation made by it before the High Court. Appellant nowhere took the stand that even upon grant of some training, the respondent would not be able to perform the job of a Data Entry Operator. It is also not their case that H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A there was no vacancy in any other post. The appellant also does not say that it committed any mistake in verifying the application for recruitment filed by the respondent. He was not only permitted to appear at the written examination but was also permitted to appear in B the interview. [Paras 13,15] [1068,A-B; 1067,E-G] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5304 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2005 c and 31.8.2005 of the High Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No. 215 of 2005 D V. Shekhar, Shalini Kumar, D.S. Mahra and 8. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. Rajnaj Mukherjee and S.C. Goyal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.