Writ Petition No. 285, 1093 of 2016. Case: Varsha Ramesh Chavan and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 285, 1093 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Advs. and For Respondents: Mrs. Neeta Masurkar a/w Mr. Vinod Joshi, Advs. |
| Judges | R.M. Borde and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | June 09, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A.S. Gadkari, J.
-
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 are the respondents in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016 and the respondents in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016.
For the sake of brevity, hereinafter the petitioners in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 and the respondents in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016 will be termed as "petitioners" and the respondents in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 and petitioners in Writ Petition No.2016 will be termed as "respondents".
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.285 of 2016 have impugned the Order dated 27.11.2014 passed in Review Petition No.45 of 2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Bombay Bench, Mumbai and have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to give full effect to the directions issued by the Tribunal in its Judgment dated 21st July 2014 in OA No817 of 2011 and regularize the petitioners from the initial date of their appointment in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs).
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1093 of 2016 have impugned the Orders, dated 27.11.2014 in Review Petition No.45 of 2014 in OA No.817 of 2011 and dated 21.7.2014 in OA No.817 of 2011 passed by the C.A.T., Mumbai and for declaration that the respondents therein are not selected by due procedure established and by due process of law and their services cannot be regularized.
As both petitions involve same facts and impugns the same orders passed by the CAT, Mumbai, both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
-
It is the case of the petitioners that I.T.A.T. Group "C" Post Recruitment Rules come into effect on 10.12.1984 and there was no requirement under the said Rules that Group-'C' Post of L.D.C. should be filled up by the Staff Selection Commission. The petitioners were appointed as LDC's on various dates between 1998 to 2001 in the ITAT, Mumbai after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and by following the procedure prescribed by the Recruitment Rules with the sanction of the Competent Authority and against sanctioned vacant posts. That the petitioners have been signing their Muster Roll from the date of their first appointment as regular employees and without any distinction between the petitioners as ad-hoc employees and other regular employees in the post of LDC. That their services were extended from time to time since the date of their initial appointment and they have been working continuously since then. That there is no compulsion for the ITAT to recruit its staff to the Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts through the Staff Selection Commission, since ITAT is a statutory body and cannot be said to be a Central Ministry or Department or attached or subordinate office of Central Ministry or Department. That the Assistant Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law and Justice by its letter dated 17.1.2008 has accordingly informed the ITAT that, the statutory body can recruit its staff directly without reference to the Staff Selection Commission.
-
It is the specific contention of the petitioners that, the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Uma Vaidyanathan, L.D.C., ITAT, Delhi Bench Vs. Union of India& Ors in O.A. No.1744 of 2004 by its Order dated 18.7.2005 has held that, as per ITAT Recruitment Rules, there is no requirement that the L.D.Cs in ITAT should be recruited only through Staff Selection Commission. That the said Judgment in the case of Uma Vaidyanathan has been implemented by the respondents by its Order dated 10.4.2006 and the said person was regularized as a LDC with effect from 1.11.1993. That further promotion has also been given to the said Uma Vaidyanathan as U.D.C. (Upper Division Clerk) on regular basis by Order dated 12.7.2006. It is further contended that, by letter dated 17.1.2008 issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice to the ITAT, it is mentioned that DOPT has informed that Staff Selection Commission does not recruit for Autonomous bodies/Organisations like ITAT and that the Staff Selection Commission has no objection for the ITAT to...
To continue reading
Request your trial