Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D. Kumar, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in M.A.No.149 of 2021 in O.A.No.123 of 2017. The petitioner had originally filed O.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking to quash the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and to direct the respondents to appoint him as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Explosives) in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) with effect from 16.12.2014, along with monetary and service benefits. The petitioner had applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.05.2013. He attended the interview and obtained 65 marks, ranking third among OBC candidates. Two other OBC candidates obtained higher marks: 70 and 66. The candidate with 66 marks, Narendra Kumar Biswal, was allegedly junior to the petitioner in a previous employment. The petitioner sent a representation dated 23.12.2013 alleging that Narendra Kumar Biswal had produced a false experience certificate. The UPSC, after considering the representation, rejected it. The petitioner then filed the original application before the CAT, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a miscellaneous application seeking review, which was also dismissed on 14.11.2022. The High Court examined the facts and found that the petitioner was not selected on merit as he had obtained lower marks than the selected candidates. The court held that even if there was an allegation of a false certificate against one of the selected candidates, the petitioner could not claim appointment as a matter of right. The court also noted that the petitioner had challenged the selection after a considerable delay of about 8 years, which disentitled him to any relief under Article 226. The court further observed that the CAT had correctly dismissed the miscellaneous application as it was essentially a review petition and no grounds for review were made out. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the CAT.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Selection on Merit - Petitioner not selected as he obtained lower marks than other candidates - Held that appointment cannot be granted to a candidate who was not selected on merit, even if another candidate's appointment is alleged to be based on false certificate (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Selection - Petitioner challenged selection after 8 years - Held that such delay disentitles the petitioner to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Paras 11-15). C) Central Administrative Tribunal - Miscellaneous Application - Review - The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking review of the original order - Held that the Tribunal's order was correct and no interference is warranted (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to notional appointment as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Explosives) with retrospective effect and consequential benefits, despite not being selected on merit and after considerable delay.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.11.2022 dismissing the miscellaneous application.
Law Points
- Service Law
- Appointment
- Selection
- Merit
- Delay and Laches
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Review
- Miscellaneous Application
