Blog

Case title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR VS GABBAR SINGH MEENA

Case no: W.P.(C) 6776/2024, CM APPL. 28244/2024-Stay

Order on: May 13, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE 

Fact of the case:

Gabbar Singh Meena applied for the position of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) in response to an advertisement issued by the Union of India in 2011. He cleared the written examination, Psycho Aptitude Test, and document verification stages successfully on 18.07.2013. However, the Union of India did not issue him an offer of appointment because he had not filled in the date and place column in his application form, leading to the rejection of his application.

Issues framed by court:

1. Whether the rejection of Gabbar Singh Meena’s application by the Union of India was valid?
2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision to direct the Union of India to issue an offer of appointment to Gabbar Singh Meena was justified?

Legal provisions:

Article 226: Provides the power to High Courts to issue writs.

Article 227: Deals with the power of superintendence of High Courts over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985: Deals with disputes related to recruitment and service matters of government employees.

Principles of Natural Justice: Principles of natural justice entail fairness and impartiality in decision-making processes.

 Contentions of Appellant:

The appellant argued that Gabbar Singh Meena’s application was rejected because he failed to fill in essential information in the application form. They contended that this deficiency warranted the rejection of his application under para 6.15 of the advertisement criteria.

The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to direct them to issue an offer of appointment to Meena. They argued that the CAT had exceeded its authority by interfering in the administrative decision-making process of the petitioners.

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondent argued that he had successfully cleared all stages of the selection process and was entitled to be offered the appointment. He argued that his performance in the written examination, Psycho Aptitude Test, and document verification demonstrated his suitability for the position. Respondent contended that the rejection of his application based on a minor technicality, such as the incomplete application form, and that was unjust and violated ‘principles of natural justice.’ Respondent argued his right to be considered for employment based on his merit and successful completion of the selection process. He argued that his disqualification due to a minor technicality deprived him of his right to employment and livelihood.

 Court analysis:

The Court, after careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and uphold the principles of natural justice, upholds the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing the petitioners to issue an offer of appointment to Gabbar Singh Meena for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP). It was found that Meena had successfully cleared all stages of the selection process, indicating his suitability for the position. The rejection of his application based on a minor technicality was deemed unjust. However, it was clarified that Meena would not be entitled to any seniority or consequential benefits. The Court directed the petitioners to comply with the CAT’s decision and take necessary actions accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

Click here to read the judgement