O.A No. 060/00213/2014. Case: 06 Nov 2015 Vs The Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
Case Number | O.A No. 060/00213/2014 |
Counsel | For Appellant: S.K. Sud, Advocate and For Respondents: Arvind Moudgil, Advocate |
Judges | Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) and Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A) |
Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
Judgement Date | November 06, 2015 |
Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench)
-
The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking quashing of appointment of private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who belongs to reserved categories and not suitable for appointment as Law Officers. He further seeks issuance of direction to respondents that after quashing the appointment of concerned private respondents, the applicants be issued an appointment letter.
-
The undisputed facts of the present O.A are that the respondent-Chandigarh Administration issued a public notice to fill up the post of Law Officer in the Law and Prosecution Department in Newspaper i.e. Hindustan Times on 04.09.2013 inviting 6 vacancies out of which one post was reserved for candidates belonging to S.C., two posts for OBC and three posts for General Category. The applicant has challenged the impugned selection of private respondents who belongs to reserved category on the ground that since they have secured less marks than the applicant who belongs general category, they are not suitable for appointment for said post.
-
In support of his prayer, the applicant has taken the legal grounds, which inter-alia, read as follow:
a) In view of the facts stated above, the applicant is entitled to be given the third post of Law Officer in General Category as per terms and conditions of Public Notice read with Notification dated 20th December, 2001. As mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of application, once the written test is held containing objective type questions of 100 marks with negative marking, then the selection process is completed and there is no scope for holding of interview.
b) In this connection, the judgment of Hon'ble Division of this court in Gurdip Singh v. R.N. Attri reported in 2000 (3) RSJ 97 based on Apex Court judgments if fully applicable.
c) It is further submitted that selection of SC/OBC Category with very low marks is also against the provisions of advertisement which laid down that in case suitable candidates are not found, then impugned posts should be given to General Category Candidates. It is further submitted that waiting list of Sahil Singla and Vishal Tiwari and Harpal Singh is besides illegal and based on extraneous consideration is otherwise unsustainable.
-
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that action of the respondents in offering an appointment to the reserved...
To continue reading
Request your trial