If the initial engagement of the petitioner itself appears to be in clear violation of constitutional mandate, court is not inclined to take a different view than what has been taken in the impugned judgment and order is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD in the case of Smt. Archana Kumari Vs. The Union of India (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14516 of 2021)
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has challenged an order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, on March 28, 2019, in which the petitioner’s application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was denied. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking a directive to the Respondent railway authorities to regularize her service as a Commercial Clerk in the same way that other similarly situated substitutes’ services had been regularized, as well as a directive to grant her further engagement as a Commercial Clerk for the post for which she was working until the post is filled on a regular basis.
The basic facts do not appear to be in question based on a review of the impugned judgement and the facts mentioned in the writ application and counter affidavit. According to the Railway Board’s letter, the petitioner was provisionally employed as Substitute Commercial Clerk for a term of six months without going through any selection procedure. The petitioner was involved in the “Minister’s quota,” which was mentioned in the challenged order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal observed in its decision that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis without going through a transparent selection process. Furthermore, even effective completion of training does not entitle the petitioner to continuation, regularization, or absorption against the job, according to the order by which she was appointed. The Tribunal also stated that the petitioner lacked the legal right to seek additional engagement, regularization, or absorption based on her six-month engagement.
court is not inclined to take a different interpretation than the Central Administrative Tribunal in the challenged judgement or order because the petitioner’s first engagement appears to be in evident violation of constitutional mandate. As a result, court denied the application.
Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi