Legal help regarding service matter

You said

I joined as Assistant Engineer in a Govt. Directorate on 16.09.96 through a selection process (only interview) held by PSC vide Ad. No.8/1993. Few departmental SAEs challenged the selection process in SAT and subsequently in Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court for not being called for the Interview and Hon’ble High Court set aside the selection process of Ad.no.8/1993 of PSC for not conducting the written test and for not taking the exigency of the Governor of WB for holding interview only and I was terminated on 31.03.2000.

Observation Your recruitment apparently was illegal you have also not challenged against High Court order. Basically you were beneficiary of a manipulation which was corrected.

You said

I joined in the same post and directorate on contract service on 01.04.2000.

Observation You did not have any right this was another favour to you.

You said

The Hon’ble High Court also passed the order for a fresh selection process  of  the said Ad.no.as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of the order of 08.09.1999. PSC announced on 14.10.2000 for fresh selection of the previous  Ad.No.8/1993 through written test and interview  for the candidates who applied previously (No new application was invited).

Observation It appears that advertisement was not set aside and only selection procedure following advertisement was quashed. No injustice is caused as only those who applied for the post in 1993 were to be considered in lawful manner.

You said

I was selected and joined again in the same post and directorate on 23.08.01 after relinquishing charge of contract service on the same day.

Observation Now your selection was lawful and the only difference is that since the post was advertised in2003 (apparently existing as on 1.1.12003) the selection procedure is said to have taken 8 years.

You said

The aggrieved SAEs qualified the written test but did not in the interview. In the meanwhile unfortunately a fresh batch of Assistant Engineers were recommended by PSC on 16.11.2000 through a selection process vide Ad no.9/1999 of PSC and they joined in the directorate around June’01 and placed senior to me.

Observation Your selection now lawful is against 2003 advertisement and persons of subsequent years cannot be senior to you.  But unfortunately you have failed to challenge the seniority list all through the years and now lost the matter in limitation.

You said

Had the selection process for the second time for us been completed within six months as directed by the Hon’ble High Court i.e by March/April-2000 this complexity would be avoided.

Observation Your arguments may be convincing by you  are already late by 12 years.

You said

I was placed junior to the batch who joined around june’2001 in the gradation list and promoted to the post of EE on 26.12.2007 after them. Subsequently recently two SE post were Vacant and two out of them were promoted and I am still in the post of EE. Being 5-6 years senior and joined in the directorate well before the batch who joined around june’01 ,now I feel humiliation and is very difficult to carry on the job.

Observation 2001 to 2007 what did you do so that this humiliation does not come to you.

You said

My question:-Is there any legal point of view through which  this type of malady can be mitigated ?

Observation  You had a brilliant claim but apparently lost due to limitation. You can meet a service lawyer with all papers so that he may think of some solution

Dear sir,

Thank you for your reply.

It was challenged in the Hon’ble Apex Court  against Hon’ble High Court  order ,but Leave Petition anyhow  was rejected.

The aggrieved SAE’s Challenged for the second time in SAT and subsequently in the Hon’ble High Court  also in 2001 and the case was rejected in 2010. In the mean time department was requested for my Seniority  through so many letters. Then I  go for the judgment to the SAT. SAT Placed an order to the Secretary of the Department for settle the matter through a reasoned order but  it  had gone against my legitimate claim. The case Now pending in the SAT and the said juniors were the added party for being affected.

The selection process  might be wrong and for that the officials conducted the examination should be responsible . Instead of that the incumbent who successfully completed 5 yrs. Of Service were terminated. If the examination for 8/1993 advertisement  had consisted  of written as well as Interview  I could have been  inducted also. Unfortunately the case  which were pending in The SAT is being sustained for long period.

Your legal help is expected earnestly.

   With regard.

                                     Asis Naskar.

M<y dear Mr Naskar, very few people know the rule whereby salary can be taken back from beneficiary of wrongful selection.