Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Madhavan Namboothiri.M (Joint Director)     20 January 2017

Illegal recruitment in Central govt

The petitioners were applicants for the post of Member support Staff SII in the respondent Organisation vide Advertisement in October 2010 Subsequently, The respondents have conducted test and interview to the said post and shortlisted successful candidates and appointed all shortlisted candidates except 9 candidates of which two are the petitioners in this writ petition. The petitioners are challenging the appointments of five of the shortlisted candidates, who do not meet either the educational qualifications or the upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement. Relaxation of educational qualification of two candidates and relaxation of age for another three candidates when qualified hands are in the recommended selection list by the selection Committee are illegal and are violating not only the bye-laws and recruitment rules of the respondent organization but also all Central govt. rules and regulations and principles of natural justice. Due to these irregularities, the petitioners who were well qualified as per the prescribed eligibility and subsequent written test and interview and thereby got included in the recommended list for appointment by the Selection Committee for these posts, were deprived of their deserving appointment. The repeated representations given by petitioner No 1 was not even replied by the respondent Organisation. The petitioners are deprived of the very fundamental rights vide Art 14, Art 16 and Art 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence this writ petition. Writ petition was heard in HC.But HC was reluctant to admit as this happened in 2011. Myself as counsel argued this as a mistake from the resp. Org as no reply was given for 2 representations. Petitioners being public at lower ed.qualiF ITI fitter do not know central govt rules of griev. Redressal set up. Etc. Also my substantive rights are subsisting by Art 14 and Art 16. Court disposed the case asking to approach Central Adm Tribunal or appropriate authority as this central govt was listed in CAT. MY QUESTION IS if I approach CAT limitation is tougher, even if sufficient cause as given in limitation Act is shown with SC judgments, CAT has its discretion to condone the delay or not. As per several judgments chances are very little to condone as long delay, evenif due to fraud or mistake from resp.org Now if the petitioners give a repre. to the ministry which is the first party in this writ also the highest authority of the resp. Org , two weeks time to decide as they were not aware of the illegal recruitments done, will it be fruitful OR File appln in CAT directly, which if rejected appeal in HC. Will HC admit this case, if not what are next options we have to fight against this gross violation from a central govt? Kindly give which SC judgments can save the petitioners


Learning

 8 Replies

Dr. Atul [9013898936] (Lawyer, Scholar)     21 January 2017

 A representation never extends limitation nor gives rise to a new cause of action. But there are a couple  of things I don't understand from your post. If the High Court refused to entertain the Petition on account of laches, how could they expect the CAT, which is bound by stricter rules of limitation, to entertain an Application? At the same time, your query hints at the fact of existence of alernative remedy in the form of CAT as a reason for rejection of the Writ. And besides, what do you really expect to achieve in 2017, from facts that arose in 2011? It might be better if you give a link to the impugned judgment,if available online.

Madhavan Namboothiri.M (Joint Director)     22 January 2017

Thank u. Judgment says "learned standing counsel submits that the respondent org. is one listed in CAT. Hence the petitioner can move Central Administrative Tribunal". Request few SC citations reg. Cond.delay in such genuine cases where sufficient cause is shown. Rgds

kristinestevart   14 April 2017

The CBN often go to enormous lengths, together with buy essay online alteration the names of recruits, in order to conceal the character of recipient of politically aggravated recruitment.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     18 April 2017

case, if any is time barred.

Madhavan Namboothiri.M (Joint Director)     18 April 2017

Yes, this is how our judiciary and democracy works. Just close it as time barred or other. Pl. See SC verdicts, So many time barred cases were opened......anyway, I just wanted to get some info. from legal fraterniy, how a lagal action, civil and criminal could be initiated against such arbitrary actions of executives/govt. Servants who makes illegal acts. Rgds

david963   24 June 2017

“Roots-Norka, a company floated by the Kerala government’s department of Non-Resident Keralites Affairs (Norka) has got a licence to streamline the recruitment of Keralite labourers for work in Middle Eastern countries. We also have the state-owned Overseas Development and Employment Promotional Consultants Limited (ODEPC),” said Achuthanandan. find out best android phones and their asseccories, wide variety of famous brands in cheap rates at​  shopping

JasperTonny   02 February 2018

The respondents have conducted test and interview to the said post and shortlisted successful candidates and appointed all shortlisted candidates except 9 candidates of which two are the petitioners in this writ petition.[url=https://www.professionalessaywriters.co.uk/]Professional Essay Writers UK[/url]

JasperTonny   02 February 2018

The respondents have conducted test and interview to the said post and shortlisted successful candidates and appointed all shortlisted candidates except 9 candidates of which two are the petitioners in this writ petition.[url=https://www.professionalessaywriters.co.uk/]Professional Essay Writers UK[/url]

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register