9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (8) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst his entry into government service. The respondents to the petition are 1. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of-India, New Delhi. 2.The Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, New Delhi. 3.The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. The petition is founded on the following allegations. The petitioner is a trained machine man. In 1948, he was employed as a machine man in the Central Tractor Organisation. He continued in government service and rendered a good account of himself in that service until, by a notice dated September 16, 1954, his services were terminated. The office order No. 375 terminating his services is at Annexure "A' t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Annexure 'D'); "With reference to his representations dated September 9, 1955 and September 21,1955, the undersigned is directed to inform Shri K.C. Nayar, Ex-Machine man that Government of India regret their inability to lift the ban on his employment for the present." It is this ban which, the petitioner pleads, has discriminated against him in the matter of government employment. The petitioner moved the Circuit Bench of Delhi of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but his petition was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench of that Court by its order dated September 12, 1956, and an application for grant of the, necessary certificate for appealing to this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main grievance, contained in paragraphs 6 and 7, with particular reference to the memorandum contained in Annexure 'ID', referred to above, the answer is in these terms "Referring to paragraphs 6 & 7 of the petition I do not admit that the Respondents had put a ban on the petitioner being taken into Government service I say that the, petitioner was not deprived of his right to apply for any service, and that the petitioner had no right to appointment. to a Government Service But it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to apply for any government service and such application would be considered on its merits." Then again in paragraph 12, after referring to the temporary character of his service and its terminatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed on the 26th of April, 1957, and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dismissing the said special leave petition on, the 26th of April, 1957 is final between the parties and should be treated as res judicata against the present applications." This is reiterated in paragraph 23, which runs as follows: "Referring to Grounds 10 and 11 of the said petition, I say that there is no fundamental right in the petitioner to move an application before this Hon'ble Court as he has sought to do. The petitioner has already exhausted all his remedies and this Hon'ble Court was also pleased to dismiss his application for special leave and as such it is submitted that the present application is wholly misconceived and shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng it purports not to admit that the respondents had put a ban' on the petitioner being taken into Government service. The answer of the respondents is, in effect, that the petitioner has not been deprived of his right to apply for a post under the Government, though so long as the ban' is there, any application by the petitioner for employment under the Government is bound to be, ignored. In spite of the denial on behalf of the respondents that there was no ban against the petitioner's employment under the Government, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner is under a ban in the matter of employment under the, Government, and that so long as the ban continues, he cannot be considered by any Government department for any p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployment or appointment under the Government. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has been deprived of his constitutional right of equality of opportunity in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State, contained in Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. So long as the ban subsists., any application made by the petitioner for employment under the State is bound to be treated as wastepaper. The fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is not only to make an application for a post under the Government but the further right to be considered on merits for the post for which an application has been made. Of course, the right does not extend to being actually appointed to the post for which an application may hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
