01Facts
The petitioner was selected for appointment as an Accountant in a 2017 recruitment process. He sought additional time to join, stating that his mother was seriously ill, but his appointment was cancelled and the post was offered to another person.
¶ 5–6After initially approaching the CAT and then the Lucknow High Court, which the petitioner attributed to wrong advice, he sought, among other reliefs, quashing of the cancellation and restoration of his appointment.
¶ 4, 802Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s request for additional time to join, made on account of his mother’s serious illness, should be reconsidered in light of the applicable rules and the Central Government’s Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1995.
¶ 6, 8ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate restoration of appointment and consequential service and monetary benefits.
¶ 403Law Applied
The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of the Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1995 and the prevailing rules.
¶ 8It also expressed the view that a genuine request for an extension of joining time should receive a humanitarian and liberal consideration.
¶ 704Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s stated reason for seeking more time and took the prima facie view that a genuine request of this kind warranted humanitarian consideration.
¶ 6–7Rather than deciding whether the cancellation was unlawful or directing restoration of the appointment, it required the petitioner to make a fresh representation and directed respondent no. 2 to examine it against the 1995 Office Memorandum and prevailing rules. The Court further directed that delay would not defeat consideration of the representation, given the petitioner’s explanation that he had initially pursued the matter in the CAT and the Lucknow High Court on wrong advice.
¶ 805Holding
The petition was disposed of without a final determination on the legality of the cancellation or the petitioner’s entitlement to appointment or consequential benefits.
¶ 8–9The petitioner may submit a fresh representation to respondent no. 2, which must pass a reasoned order within one month of receiving the order, considering the 9 August 1995 Office Memorandum and prevailing rules; delay is not to stand in the way of that consideration.
¶ 8–9Original Court PDF
RANJAY KUMARvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
