The Lieutenant Governor (Administrator) And ORS. v. Dr. Poonam Yedla And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COUR AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...
WP.CT/185/2021 The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Petitioners Vs.
Dr.Poonam Yedla & others ... Respondents Mr.Krishna Rao, Advocate ... for the petitioners Mr.Rajinder Singh, Advocate ...for the respondent no. 1&2 September 16, 2021 [GNC] Item No.1 The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 4th June, 2019 and 23rd December, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in OA No.351/00051/2016 directing the status quo with regard to the applicants be maintained till the next date and the same was extended further.
The Administration pertains to the regularisation of the services of the private respondents who were appointed on ad hoc basis as Veterinary Officers and the prayer for regularization was accepted by the Administration but the Union Public Service Commission declined to accede to such proposal. The prayer for regularization was made in terms of the mandate given in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, which provides for a onetime measure to be taken in the event the appointment is irregular. However, the matter is pending before the Tribunal and at the time of
admitting the said petition filed by the respondents the Tribunal protected the interest of the private respondents to the extent that the recruitment would be subject to the outcome of the original application.
Mr.Singh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents says that the engagement of the respondents have been extended till April, 2022. In other words, he wants to impress upon us that the Administration wanted their services and even after recommending for regularization of the services the Union Public Service Commission have declined for no reason whatsoever. The matter is pending before the Tribunal. As the challenge is thrown to the decision of the Union Public Service Commission declining to accede to the proposal of the Administration for regularization service of the respondents. Amidst the pendency of the said original application by the impugned order the Tribunal surreptitiously jumped to the conclusion that the status quo is required to be maintained.
The order is not founded on any observation and/or findings required for arriving at the decision for granting an order of injunction in the form of the status quo. There must be a positive finding before the Court ventured to embark journey on the peripherals of the principles of the injunction required to be adhered to. The order is bereft of any findings/reason and there is no recording of existence of a prima facie case which is one of the limbs for granting the injunction.
We are informed by the counsels appearing for the respective parties that the tribunal application is fixed on 23rd September, 2021 for final hearing. Since the protection has already been extended to the respondents way back in 2016, we do not find any exigency for passing an order of injunction in the form of status quo at least it does not appear from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
We thus cannot sustain the order of status quo passed by the Tribunal nor even an extension subsequently granted and therefore the order to that extent are set aside. The matter is fixed on 23rd September, 2021, the Tribunal is directed to take up the matter on the said date and shall dispose of the same immediately. For any reason which is beyond conceivable contingencies the matter could not be disposed of on the said date, endeavour shall be shown to the dispose of the same within seven days therefrom. For the purpose of adhering the time limit indicated hereinabove, both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal and participate in the proceeding. None of the parties shall ask for an adjournment except on unforeseeable circumstances. Even in that case the Tribunal shall fix the matter on the next date so that it can be disposed of within the time indicated hereinabove. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Harish Tandon, J. ) ( Shivakant Prasad, J. )