Offer of appointment
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
I have been the victim of injustice in High Court of AP
One of the PSU located at Hyderabad had sent the requisition to employment exchange for filling up the vacancies for the various posts in wage group-2 in June 2009
I came to know about the notification and requested the employment officer at exchange to sponsor my name for the same but due to labs of my seniority the officer said he can’t send my name
A group of 5 people including me approach the High court and filed a writ on basis of courts interim directions the PSU allowed appearing the written test along with sponsored candidates, qualified for practical test and I was successful in interview
My name was is selected list of candidates the results were published over the website
Subsequently I was offered for the post of junior technician in wage group 2 in offer letter with a heading ‘preliminary proposal of offer of appointment’
I accepted the offer and submitted all the required documents along with police verification certificate, medical tests certificate and I was asked get closed of the writ, in the court at the time of interim order the PSU didn’t raise any objection but after I had gone through all the test and got offer letter and submitted all the required documents along with police verification certificate
In the main final argument in the court the PSU contented that the recruitment rule No.21.1 permit only employment exchange sponsored candidates to be recruited and got dismissed the writ
At the time interim order the consul representing my side was inexperienced and filed an other mp in same wp but the interim mp was not closed
I changed my consul and filed a review petition in the review the PSU contended that it the offer letter was a mere preliminary proposal of offer of appointment. And got dismissed on pretext of recruitment rule No.21.1says
All Direct Recruitment vacancies in Wage Groups-E (WG-7) and below are to be notified to the local Employment Exchanges. Vacancies of Scientific and Technical nature in Groups-D (WG-6) & E (WG-7) should be simultaneously notified to the Central Employment Exchanges also. If the Employment Exchanges are unable to sponsor suitable candidates within the prescribed time limits, the vacancies may be advertised in the press on a local/regional basis. Where adequate number of suitable candidates are not available against local/regional advertisement, the vacancies may be advertised on All India basis
later I filed a writ appeal with 2 mp tagged the appeal was dismissed on 21 June 2010 even though my representing consul inform the court that I was an trained apprentice of same PSU relaying on apex court judgment in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh [1995] INSC 42 (12 January 1995 for this a trained apprentice need not be sponsored from employment exchange and recruitment rule No. 10
The recruitment rule No. 10 says GROUP-‘B’ (Revised WG-2) :
All posts in Group-‘B’ (WG-2) in the trades not provided for in Group-‘A’ (WG-1) will be filled by direct recruitment. Departmental candidates who have the requisite qualifications can also be considered for promotion/appointment to such trades in Group-‘B’ (WG-2). All things being equal departmental candidates and Apprentices trained in the Company under National Apprentices Training Scheme should be given preference.
Mean time the PSU filled up the vacancies in Nov 2009 which is much before the final out come of the writ appeal for which I came know very recently
Now I want know can I file appeal in Supreme Court now after 3 years
On following counts
1) the PSU unilaterally filled the vacancy which was offered me when writ was pending without the permission of the court
2) The PSU was well aware of that my candidature was by court why did the PSU slept and offered me a appointment and later dined on pretext of rules, even though rule No. 10 say All things being equal departmental candidates and Apprentices trained in the Company under National Apprentices Training Scheme should be given preference.
3) Why was the PSU not questioned that the rules were made much earlier the interim order passed and the time interim why PSU has not objected
Does any one see a merit in my case?
All members are requested to suggest
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 04 July 2013
You have no other alternate but to file an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by annexing an application seeking condonation of delay.
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
I want to know what are the chances of getting success
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 04 July 2013
We have come across many such writs before other HC s.
The party with immature advocate do the blunder and than blame others.
At initial stage it is not the order but verbal discussions between the court and counsel which the candidates feel that it is an order.
At that stage if written commitment is taken than only situation changes otherwise not.
SC is not only costly but very costly and even thereafter you must have a counsel who understands the problem than only the matter can be put properly before court.
Guest
(Expert) 04 July 2013
Dear Naveen Kumar,
It is not understood, how you have been the victim of injustice in High Court, when you tried to get the job forcibly while your name was not officially sponsored by the employment exchange.
Jobs cannot be grabbed by force from any organisation. I wonder, who advised you to file a case in the HC to get the job, when you were not officially sponsored candidate. High Court cannot guarantee jobs as against the basic rules of recruitment of any organisation. High court can provide justice, only if injustice is meted out by the management to an already appointed official of an organisation.
Interim directions of any court are not the final orders and are solely dependent upon the final outcome of the case on merits of the case, which your advocate failed to prove.
Now, even if you go to the SC with appeal, in my views, you would only be wasting your prime time and money, as the results are not likely to be encouraging. Basically, the case was taken up quite on misconception and wrong lines with wrong.
So, better concentrate on finding a suitable job instead of wasting your time and money on litigation over nothing.
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
Dear Sir,
I could not understand that I intended to grab the job by force
I understand the court has ordered not insist upon sponsorship from exchange
it was up to origination to select me or not to select me and again offering me job or not
do you find any fault with this action
When recruitment rule No.10 says All posts in Group-‘B’ (WG-2) in the trades not provided for in Group-‘A’ (WG-1) will be filled by direct recruitment. Departmental candidates who have the requisite qualifications can also be considered for promotion/appointment to such trades in Group-‘B’ (WG-2). All things being equal departmental candidates and Apprentices trained in the Company under National Apprentices Training Scheme should be given preference.
In what terms a trained apprentice is All things being equal departmental candidates and Apprentices trained in the Company under National Apprentices Training Scheme should be given preference.
May be please clarified
i am very much thankful for sparing your valuable time and suggestion
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 04 July 2013
What I have understood from your pleadings is that you were having much experience and were working there so you might have been considered for the job and the department would not have shown the vacancy to employment exchange and accordingly you had filed the writ.
As your writ has failed, you need to approach Supreme Court of India.
Guest
(Expert) 04 July 2013
Mr. Naveen,
Just imagine, when you were not sponsored by the employment exchange to be a direct recuit and you were also not a departmental candidate, where did you stand?
Had you read carefully 2nd and 3rd paras of my earlier reply, you could well have understood, was not that your effort to make an indirect entry through HC to grab the post by forcing court orders against the rules of the organisation?
Trained apprentice does not mean that if an organisation train thousands of apprentice they should compulsorily take them all against just a few posts and that too if anyone is not sponsored by the employment exchange. You have already stated that employment officer refused to spondsor you due to your seniority issues. You should know that even if the employment exchange would have sponsored 20 candidates against 5 posts, the organisation would have been free to reject the 15 candidates after selection of 5 candidates against the vacant posts.
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
A group of 5 people including me approach the High court and filed a writ on basis of courts interim directions the PSU allowed to appear the written test along with sponsored candidates, qualified for practical test and I was successful in interview
My name was is selected list of candidates the results were published over the website
I was not working with same organization
Guest
(Expert) 04 July 2013
About your latest post, I have already expressed my views. However, if you still want to stick on your own theory, you may better file an appeal in the SC to have some more experience on the issue. No other alternative.
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
Dear Sir,
You have not answered the my question on the action of organization on issuing a offer of appointment.
When case was in the court the PSU unilaterally filled the offered vacancy from waiting list without the court permission much before the final out come of the WA
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
Dear Sir,
Once again I am very thankful for giving your valuable time on my issue
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 04 July 2013
nothing to add.
Guest
(Expert) 04 July 2013
When you are unable to realise the position, your latest question is irrelevant as you do not want to understand the meaning of the term "interim". The validity of arrangement made upon interim order depended solely on the final order of the court.
naveen kumar
(Querist) 04 July 2013
As stated by you the validity of arrangement made upon interim order depended solely on the final order of the court.
Can organization act unilaterally much before the final order of the court.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 July 2013
This forum will not provide any justice. It is only advisory forum on charitable basis.
You have been advised well. Move ahead in the direction.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 04 July 2013
There was no stay order against the selection process in the writ filed by you so the organization was free to select from the waiting list.
