R.A. Nos. 253, 254, 255 & 262 of 2009 in O.A. Nos. 3132, 3133, 3134 & 3135/2009. Case: 1. Anil Kumar, 2. Ashok Kumar, 3. Neelam Dogra, 4. Neelam Bora Vs Union of India and Others. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberR.A. Nos. 253, 254, 255 & 262 of 2009 in O.A. Nos. 3132, 3133, 3134 & 3135/2009
CounselU. Srivastava
JudgesV. K. Bali (Chairman) & L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman)
IssueService Laws
Judgement DateJanuary 05, 2010
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)

  1. Similarly as we decided four connected Original Applications mentioned above, we propose to dispose of these four review applications by this common order. The connected OAs were dismissed by our order dated 9.11.2009. Against the order aforesaid, the applicants filed WP(C) No.13260/2009, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2009 by the Hon''ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, by recording the following order:

    "Learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a review application.

    Leave and liberty granted.

    Dismissed as withdrawn.

  2. It has inter alia been pleaded in the application seeking review that the applicants had handed over copies of some documents mentioned in para 2 of the review application to their counsel before filing the OA, to establish the vacancy position earlier as well as existing, but the same were not attached with the OA, and that the applicants were told that the documents would be placed before the Bench at the time of hearing, and further that orders in the OAs were reserved, but despite the fact that the applicants asked their counsel to place the documents before the Tribunal at the time of hearing, the counsel instead of placing the documents on records, advised them to file written arguments, and along with the said arguments, to attach the documents. It is then pleaded that the applicants tried to submit the documents on 9.11.2009 but the same were not taken on records for consideration, as the order had already been prepared and was to be pronounced on the same day. On the basis of documents now filed along with the review applications, the plea raised by the applicants is that far more vacancies were available. In paragraph 6(C) it has been pleaded that the applicants could not produce the facts before the Tribunal that there were 11 vacancies of Accountants cleared by the screening committee for filling up by direct recruitment for the year 2003-04. In paragraph 6(D) it is mentioned that this Tribunal ignored the plea raised by the applicants, specifically highlighted in the written submission, that as per instructions five more vacancies in the cadre of Accountants had fallen vacant.

  3. Before we may proceed further, we would like to mention that the Original Applications were argued by Shri P. P. Khurana, Senior Advocate and present with him was Shri Amit...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT