OA No. 1446/2011, MA No. 1178/2011. Case: 1. Chandra Mouleshwer Jha S/o Badri Narayan Jha, 2. Anamika Tiwari D/o Arvind Nath Tiwari Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Culture, New Delhi, 2. National Archives of India, Through Director General of Archives, 3. Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Government of India, Northern Regional Office, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 1446/2011, MA No. 1178/2011 |
| Judges | Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member) & Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma (Judicial Member) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
| Judgement Date | April 21, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
MA No.1178/2011 has been filed by both the Applicants for joining together as the cause of action and the relief (s) claimed are the same. Hence, the MA No.1178/2011 is allowed.
-
By way of OA No.1446/2011 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-
(a) A direction to the effect that the applicants are entitled to be considered for relaxation and direction to the respondents to grant relaxation to the applicants for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Archivist for which interview is scheduled for 21.04.2011;
(b) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants, if the applicants are declared successful in the interview;
(c) Any other and such further relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case, be also passed in favour of the Applicants and against the Respondents.
-
Brief facts of the case would reveal that the Applicants are working as Archival Assistants with the National Archives of India since 18.01.2010 (Pages 23 and 24) on a monthly consolidated pay of Rs.15000 for a period of one year vide order dated 6.01.2010 on contract basis. It is the Applicants' case that they have been working diligently and were also awarded certificate by the Respondent No.2 acknowledging their hard work with the projects of Respondent No.2. The Applicant No.2 has two years experience of Teaching of modern History in a recognized educational institution. It is the case of the Applicants that the Respondents after a long gap of 10 years have advertised for 21 permanent post of Assistant Archivist through Respondent No.3 in the year 2009. Both the Applicants applied for the said post and submitted their respective applications to the Respondent seeking relaxation in essential qualification and inter alia submitted that the relaxation in Essential Qualification (EQ) be granted to them as they possess the one year Diploma in Archives and Record Management and M.A. in History and has been serving as Archival Assistant and as such requested the Respondent No.2 to recommend their case for consideration by Respondent No.3 for relaxing the essential qualification. It is further averred that the relaxation of qualification is at the discretion of Staff Selection Commission/Competent Authority in case of candidate otherwise qualified. Despite their submitting representations, the Respondents have not decided the same till date. However, it is seen from the pleadings that the Respondents have intimated to Applicant No.1 vide letter dated 6.12.2010 (Page-35) that his candidature has been cancelled as he does not meet the essential qualification (EQ) III specified in the advertisement. In case of Applicant No.2, the reason for candidature cancellation has been indicated on 6.12.2010 (Page-36) that she does not fulfill EQ-I & II. In the meantime, the Applicant No.1 requested for relaxation of Essential Qualification in her letters dated 16.12.2010 (Page-44), dated 30.12.2010 (Page-47) to Respondent No.2 and in his letter dated 5.4.2011 (Pages 45-46) to Respondent No.3. Similar letters were also sent by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial