Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 22: A Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal comprising Chairman Justice L Narasimha Reddy and Administrative Member Mohd Jamshed has held that employer has the right to withhold No-Objection Certificate (NOC) in the public interest and to maintain healthcare system.
The CAT Bench held this while disposing of bunch of petitions challenging the Advertisement Notices insofar as they insisted that the applications shall be forwarded only with the permission of the Administrative Department.
After hearing battery of lawyers for the petitioners whereas Additional Advocate General Amit Gupta with Deputy AGs Sudesh Magotra and Rajesh Thappa, the CAT observed, “issue involved in this batch of OAs is about the entitlement of the applicants to be issued the ‘NOC’ to enable them to apply for the post of Registrar”, adding “the qualifications for the post of Registrar are stipulated under the Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979”.
“According to the applicants, the condition amounts to modification of the Jammu & Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979”, the CAT said, adding “a subtle distinction needs to be maintained in this behalf. The Recruitment Rules stipulate the eligibility criteria for a candidate to be considered for permission. The impugned circular dated 20.01.2020 and other similar orders on the other hand, prescribe the guidelines for processing the applications of in-service candidates. They do not at all tell upon the eligibility of the candidates to apply. The objective is only to provide guidance in the context of forwarding the applications”.
“If a person employed in a department intends to apply for another post or intends to improve his qualifications, the department would certainly have a right to keep in view its requirement and interests before according such permission”, the CAT said, adding “a decent balance needs to be struck between the need of the department on the one hand and the right of the candidate on the other”.
“The guidelines framed by the respondents through circular dated 02.01.2020 etc cannot be treated as unconstitutional or amounting to modification of the RRs”, the CAT said, adding “it is true that the High Court has struck down a circular dated 20.12.2007 vide its judgment dated 31.10.2008 when it was proposed to increase the experience from one year to two years”.
“It was a clear case of modification to RRs and that could have been done only through the amendment to the RRs and not by way of an Executive order. In the instant case, no attempt is made to re-define the eligibility criteria prescribed under the RRs. As observed earlier, the stipulations were only for proper guidance and objective processing of the applications”, the bench said while dismissing the petitions.
Follow our WhatsApp channel