Original Application Nos.181/00056/2016 & 181/00471/16. Case: 1. Faheema Meharban 2. Shahida A.K Vs 1. The Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep 2. The Secretary (Health) 3. The Director of Health Services 4. Ms.Shahida A.K. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application Nos.181/00056/2016 & 181/00471/16
CounselFor Appellant: Mr.T.P.Nishad Khan, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr.S Manu, Adv.
JudgesMr. N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member and Mrs.P.Gopinath , Administrative Member
IssueAdministrative Law
Judgement DateJanuary 12, 2017
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


Mrs.P.Gopinath, Administrative Member, (Ernakulam Bench)

O.A 181/00056/2016:

Applicant's case is that Annexure A-2 notification for ANM-A3 check list was published with less marks shown in respect of the applicant in both ANM and SSLC. Applicant is a candidate for the post of ANM as per the notification dated 23.9.2013 of the directorate of Health Services, Kavarathi, Lakshadweep, for one ANM Post and one anticipated post. A check list based on Annexure A-1 notification was issued by the 3 rd respondent on 12.2.2013 wherein the marks obtained by this applicant for SSLC examination plus ANM qualifying examination were shown lesser than the marks actually obtained by the applicant. Applicant filed an objection and another checklist dated 17.1.2014 was published and therein the marks obtained in ANM qualifying examination only was corrected and no correction was made in the SSLC marks. The applicant belongs to the category of students who were awarded grade for SSLC examination. Some candidates who are listed in the checklist belong to the category of students who were awarded marks for SSLC. The applicant got information that Sumayya Tasneem of rank one position and one M/s.Ms.Shahida.A.K, got offer letter from, the department as eligible to be posted as ANM. This applicant has no dispute with regard to rank

1 candidate because she deserves the 1st position. If the marks obtained for SSLC is rightly calculated the applicant makes a claim for the second position in the rank list. If the department would consider the applicant's plea to calculate the marks obtained for SSLC correctly, the marks of the applicant would be 62.35%. This would entitle the applicant to get the second position in the list.

  1. Applicant argues that the method of calculating SSLC marks for candidates who were awarded grade is covered by the A4 method. Wrong calculation pushed the candidate down to 3 rd position. Applicant would argue that she is the only eligible candidate to be considered for the 2 nd vacancy and giving offer letter to another violates her right of selection and needs to be struck down.

  2. Relief sought by applicant is to direct the respondents to prepare new rank list by placing the petitioner in 2 nd position in the rank list after correcting the mistake in the calculation of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and to issue appointment order to the applicant.

  3. The applicant admits that due to a clerical mistake the date noted in the Original...

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