9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Promotion to the post of Law Assistant - Regularization - Principles of natural justice - Ad hoc promotion - Violation of recruitment rules - Rectification of mistake - Estoppel - Regular promotion eligibility. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order regarding the promotion of two appellants to the post of Law Assistant. The appellants had applied for the position and participated in the selection process, which led to their promotion on an ad hoc basis. The issue revolved around the subsequent modification of their promotion status and their claim for regularization. The appellants contended that the modification was arbitrary and against natural justice principles. They argued that they should be considered as regular appointees and not compelled to participate in further selections. On the other hand, the respondents maintained that the promotion was ad hoc due to service exigencies and rectifying the mistake was justified. The Tribunal analyzed the case, considering the principles of natural justice, adherence to recruitment rules, rectification of errors, and the concept of estoppel. The Tribunal first addressed the question of natural justice, noting that the appellants had the opportunity to present their case during representations against the ad hoc promotion. The Tribunal found that the absence of a notice before the modification did not vitiate the process. It then examined the promotion process based on recruitment rules, emphasizing that selection and availability of vacancies were crucial for regular appointments. The Tribunal observed that the appellants' promotion was intended to be ad hoc due to specific circumstances, and vacancies for regular appointments were limited. Despite the appellants' continued work as Law Assistants, the Tribunal held that they were aware of the ad hoc nature of their promotions. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the delay in rectifying the mistake and the appellants' prolonged service on the posts. It concluded that while some injustice was done to the appellants, there could be no estoppel against the law. The Tribunal upheld the ad hoc nature of the appellants' promotions and denied their claim for regular appointment as Law Assistants. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appellants were not selected or empaneled for regular promotion, justifying the ad hoc nature of their appointments. The Court dismissed the appeal but allowed the respondents to reconsider the appellants' case for appointment as Law Assistants under suitable conditions.
|
