U.O.I & Ors vs Tilak Raj Gandhi

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell are as under:

5. After necessary scrutiny and upon getting report from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), it was found that Mrs. Anita Soni was not eligible for appointment to the post whereas the respondent, who was working as General Manager (Finance) with the MTNL, was facing an inquiry initiated by the CBI and therefore, no one was appointed from the said list.

8. As the respondent was not given appointment to the post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13th/14th November, 2008, he had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Ultimately, the petition filed by the respondent had been dismissed and he was asked to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing an O.A.

9. The respondent, thereafter, filed an O.A. No.261 of 2011 before the CAT praying that he should be appointed to the post of the Director (Finance) in the BSNL. The said O.A. was also dismissed by an order dated 12th October, 2011 as the CAT found that the process of taking decision with regard to appointment to the post in question was flawless. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent had filed W.P. (C ) No. 7816 of 2011 before the High Court.

10. Subsequently, the inquiry initiated against the respondent by the CBI had been closed in pursuance of an order dated 22nd December, 2012 passed by the Special Judge, CBI. After the inquiry initiated by the CBI was closed, the impugned judgment was delivered on 21st January, 2013 by the High Court in the above- mentioned writ petition filed by the respondent. As at the relevant time no inquiry was pending against the respondent, by the impugned order, the appellants have been directed to appoint the respondent as Director (Finance) in the BSNL immediately after superannuation of an officer who was working as Director (Finance) in the BSNL at the relevant time. The post in question was not vacant at the relevant time and it was to become vacant on 30th November, 2013, as the person holding the said post was to be superannuated on 30th November, 2013.

18. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel had submitted that the view expressed by the High Court of Delhi in the impugned judgment is correct and the appeal filed by the Union of India and others should be dismissed.

25. Unfortunately, the High Court did not give importance to the fact that an appointment in pursuance of the subsequent advertisement had already been made by the appellant authorities and therefore, the respondent had no legally subsisting right to be appointed to the post in question as he had not applied for the post in question again. In the circumstances we do not agree with the view expressed by the High Court that even after completion of the term of the person who was appointed to the post in question, the respondent would have a subsisting legal right to be appointed without considering other suitable candidates who might be available at the relevant time. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, interim relief granted in favour of the respondent would not be of any help to the respondent because at this stage, the respondent cannot be given appointment without considering other eligible candidates who might have applied for the post in question. If other eligible candidates are not given a chance to compete with the respondent for getting appointment to the post in question, injustice would be caused to the other eligible candidates and it would also not be proper to fill up any public office without giving an opportunity to other candidates who might be eligible and desirous for appointment to the post in question.

27. For the above reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

28. We clarify that the case of the respondent, even if has crossed the maximum age limit, shall be considered along with other candidates, if in pursuance of the next advertisement the respondent applies for the post in question.