JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition challenges the Order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Tribunal’) dated 11th September, 2000, dismissing
OA.572/2000, filed by the Tribunal. The petitioner before
the Tribunal challenged the order of termination issued by
respondent No. 2 dated 16.3.2000.
2. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement noticed
dated 27.7.1996 inviting applications for three posts of
Computer Operators, Grade-II. The petitioner figured at
serial No. 3 of the selection panel and was appointed by
an Order dated 29.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 2. He
joined against this post and an satisfactory completion of
his probation was confirmed by order dated 1.2.1999 passed
by respondent No. 2. However, later he was put on show
cause notice dated 11.1.2000 by respondent No. 2 stating
that respondent NO. 1 raised objections to his appointment
which according to the respondent No. 1 was bad in law and
in contravention of CSIR instructions. He replied to this
notice, but his services were ordered to be terminated by
order dated 16.3.2000. He challenged this in O.A.
572/2000 which was dismissed by impugned order dated
11.9.2000 by Tribunal holding that since appointment was
mae erroneously against a non-existing post it was rightly
set aside. The petitioner has now filed this petition
assailing the Tribunal’s order.
3. In our view the impugned judgment of the Tribunal
cannot be sustained. The petitioner had undergone the
comprehensive departmental selection procedure. He had
been fully found fit and it is not in dispute that he has
carried out his duties satisfactorily since his appointment
on 29th January, 1998. In fact it is not in dispute that
the petitioner had successfully completed his probation and
was confirmed by an Order dated 1st February, 1999, passed
by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also brought on
record the fact that he is doing a highly specialized job
of IMPACT System (Integrated Management of Project and
Accounting). Furthermore right since the date o his
appointment, the petitioner has been working on the post of
Computer Operator and due to the various interim orders
passed from time to time by the Tribunal and this Court has
continued to do so since 29th January, 1998 up to date. The
petitioner will obviously now be handicapped by seeking a
fresh employment at this stage of this career. The
respondents’ purported mistake has led to the present
situation and the petitioner cannot be blamed for the
error, if any, committed by the respondents. In fact the
respondents who have appointed the petitioner after a
proper selection procedure are now estopped from contending
to the contrary as the petitioner due to the long passage
of time cannot now be asked to seek fresh employment.
4. In our view in the impugned order, the Tribunal has
failed to consider this aspect of the estoppel against the
respondent No. 2. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had made
a request in December, 1997 regarding the downgrading of
Group III post to Group II post. Thereafter it proceeded
on an assumption that since the CSIR, respondent No. 1 had
not offered any comments on the proceedings, the approval
can be presumed. This order was passed on 8th January,
1998 by the Director of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, it
was noted on 19th January, 1998 by the respondent No. 2 that
there was great demand for immediate appointment of a
computer operator and, therefore, in view of the
implementation of the business plan and the increasing
project work, the appointment letter was issued to the
petitioner. The respondent No. 1 has indeed sought to rely
upon its own inaction on the request of the respondent No. 2
to downgrade the posts in Group III to Group II to enable
it to fill up the posts of computer operator. The
respondent No. 1 while frowning upon the action of
respondent No. 2 in assuming its non-disapproval as approval
has however, not stated as and when whether the proposal
was specifically disapproved by it. The additional
affidavit stated that the respondent No. 1-CSIR’s
Headquarters rejected the request of respondent No. 2 for
upgrading the Group-III post to Group-II post. However,
the affidavit dated 30th August, 2001 fails to state as to
when the proposal to upgrade the post was rejected. This
is a crucial factor in determining the laches of the
respondent No. 1 in waking up to the alleged mistake of
respondent No. 2. In any event, the internal arrangements
and misunderstanding between respondent No. 1 & 2 cannot
affect the petitioner’s rights vested and otherwise and the
respondent No. 1’s long delay in objecting to the
petitioner’s appointment is a crucial circumstance not
given due weight by the Tribunal.
5. The petitioner has appeared in the interview on 15th
March, 1997 and was selected on 29th January, 1998 and even
though the proposal to upgrade the post was sent by
respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in December, 1997, the
notice of termination of the petitioner’s services was
given only on 11th January, 2000. This fact of substantial
delay in objecting to the petitioner’s employment is
crucial and appears to have been totally overlooked by the
Tribunal. We have also given due consideration to the
severe prejudice which would be caused to the petitioner by
this arbitrary delay on behalf of the respondents.
Furthermore the petitioner is now doing a highly
specialised job of IMPACT System (Integrated Management of
Project and Accounting). The petitioner’s appointment was
also occasioned by the imminent need noted on 19.1.98 by
the respondent No. 2 for the immediate appointment of a
Computer Operator. The petitioner having been selected by
a duly constituted DPC and had been confirmed after
satisfactory completion of his probation on 1.2.1999,
cannot now be thrown out arbitrarily. Significantly the
Tribunal has failed to even advert tot he plea raised by
the petitioner that due to the selection by respondent
No. 1, he had left his earlier job and had subsequently
become over-age. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated
11th September, 2000, passed by the Tribunal cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner was
entitled to succeed in his application before the Tribunal
and the impugned Order dated 16th March, 2000 cancelling
the petitioner’s appointment is accordingly set aside.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
