Execution cannot reassess merits where authorities have duly considered the claim and passed a reasoned decision.

The petitioners had participated in a recruitment process for the post of Conservancy Safaiwala undertaken after “Operation Parakram.” The recruitment process was not completed, following which they filed O.A. No. 1145 of 2014 seeking consideration for appointment

By judgment dated 13 April 2022, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider their claim by ignoring the ban on recruitment and appointment, examine whether appointment could be recommended in relaxation of the ban under the applicable guidelines, and pass a well-considered decision

The respondents challenged that judgment before the Allahabad High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed on 14 March 2024.

The respondents subsequently passed a reasoned order dated 14 June 2024. After the Tribunal found the initial compliance affidavit insufficient, the matter was referred to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, which, by communication dated 29 April 2025, declined relaxation on the ground that the Conservancy services had been outsourced since 2011, the Conservancy cadre had become a dying cadre, and no post existed.

The petitioners alleged that the judgment had not been complied with, particularly because no favourable recommendation for appointment had been made. The Tribunal also directed reconsideration regarding allegedly identically placed persons and received a further affidavit from the respondents stating that no such person had been appointed at Station Headquarters, Talbehat.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the directions in the judgment dated 13 April 2022 by considering the petitioners’ claim, examining relaxation of the recruitment ban, and taking a reasoned decision, notwithstanding that the decision was adverse to the petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners could, in execution proceedings, challenge the correctness of the respondents’ decision on merits by relying upon appointments allegedly made at Station Headquarters, Bhatinda?

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that execution proceedings are confined to examining whether the operative directions of the judgment have been complied with and cannot be used to reopen or adjudicate the correctness of the decision taken in purported compliance.

The operative directions in the original judgment required consideration of the petitioners’ claim notwithstanding the recruitment ban, examination of the possibility of recommending appointment by relaxation of the ban if permissible under the guidelines, consideration of the petitioners’ representations and pleadings, and issuance of a well-considered decision; they did not direct their automatic appointment.

An adverse or unfavourable decision, by itself, does not constitute non-compliance where the prescribed decision-making exercise has been undertaken.

The Tribunal distinguished between the relief granted in the original judgment and the relief sought in execution. The original judgment required a decision-making process, not a direction to appoint the petitioners outright.

The respondents had passed a reasoned and speaking order, subsequently referred the question of relaxation of the ban to the Department of Expenditure, and placed the resulting decision on record.

The competent authorities considered the effect of the recruitment ban, outsourcing of Conservancy services, abolition or dying-cadre status of the Conservancy cadre, and the absence of available posts.

The Tribunal held that the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court decision and alleged appointments of 78 Conservancy Safaiwala at Station Headquarters, Bhatinda, could not enlarge the scope of execution proceedings, particularly when the respondents had explained that the Bhatinda case was factually distinguishable and that no similarly placed person had been appointed at Talbehat.

Since the required consideration and recommendation-related examination had taken place, the merits of the adverse decision could not be reassessed in execution.

The judgment did not guarantee appointment; it only required consideration of the petitioners’ claim and a well-considered decision regarding possible relaxation of the recruitment ban.

The Execution Application was accordingly dropped, any notices issued to the respondents were discharged, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.