OA No.060/00011/2016. Case: Sunil Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No.060/00011/2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. P. K. Khindria, Advocat |
| Judges | Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J) and Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A |
| Issue | Adiministrative Law |
| Judgement Date | May 15, 2017 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J)
-
The challenge in this Original Application (OA), filed by applicant Sunil Sharma son of R.C. Sharma, is to the impugned notices dated 13.11.2015 (Annexure A-6) and dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A-1), whereby he was declared not eligible for the post of Medical Record Officer (for brevity -- MRO--), by treating him over-age.
-
The epitome of facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant OA, and emanating from the record, is that the applicant, whose date of birth is 23.11.1972, was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC), in the office of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (For brevity -- PGI--), vide letter dated 27.1.1998 (Annexure A-20). Thereafter, he was appointed to the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT), vide order dated 18.11.2004 (Annexure A-21). He was further promoted as Junior Medical Record Officer (JMRO) on 5.10.2010 (Annexure A-22). He was stated to have received a meritorious award dated 7.7.2015 (Annexure A-23), for his devotion and dedication to service.
-
The case set up by the applicant, in brief, in so far as relevant is, that as per the relevant recruitment rules, the next promotion from JMRO, is to the post of MRO, which is to be filled up by way of promotion, falling which by way of direct recruitment. One post of MRO was already vacant and two more posts became available in the year 2012, pursuant to the promotion of 2 MROs to the posts of Senior MROs, but the respondents did not convene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), for making promotion. On the other hand, in order to fill up 3 posts of MROs, by way of direct recruitment, advertisement dated 1.8.2014 (Annexure A-10), was issued by the respondents. The objection raised by the applicant and other JMROs that the posts of MROs are to be filled up by way of promotion, and not by way of direct recruitment, did not evoke any response. So, they sought permission to apply for the advertised posts of MROs. It was alleged that, vide orders dated 3.11.2014 rendered in O.A. No. 060/00186/2015 titled Jyoti Kumari Vs. PGIMR & others, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider her case, for promotion to the post of MRO. One post of MRO was stated to have been withdrawn, by issuing corrigendum dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure A-8) by the respondents. However, the written test was conducted on 15.3.2015, and the result was declared by way of result sheet, (Annexure A-7), without disclosing the detailed marks obtained by each candidate.
-
The case of the applicant, further proceeds, that, although, he successfully cleared the written examination, but he was declared not eligible, for the said post on the ground of over-age, vide impugned notice dated 13.11.2015 (Annexure A-6). He made representation dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure A-5), requesting for waiving of upper age limit, by highlighting 17 years of service, rendered with the PGI. The applicant submitted a reminders dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure A-3) and dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A-2). The matter was placed before the Legal Cell, who was stated to have suggested in affirmative, to grant age relaxation to the applicant. The competent authority has, however, issued impugned notice dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A-1), calling the other candidates for interview, ignoring the claim of the applicant and declared him not eligible, being overage.
-
Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA challenging the...
To continue reading
Request your trial