L G GAUTHAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, before the. Central Administrative Tribunal, bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), assailed the action of the respondents in not selecting him to the post of Auditor, selection and appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of Auditor and selection and appointments of respondents 6 to 8 to the post of clerks. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application No. 571 of 2000 filed by the petitioner by its order dated 6th February, 2002 and the same is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) THE Accountant General (Audit) I and II by issuing Employment notification published in the Employment News dated 28-12-1996 - 3-1-1997 invited applications from Indian citizens of outstanding achievements in the field of sports for appointment to one post of clerk and four posts of auditors to serve in the office of the Accountant general (Audit) I and II. In pursuance of that notification the petitioner; 5th respondent and one B. M. Belliappa applied for the post of Auditor, whereas respondents 6 to 8 and three others applied for the post of clerk. While a graduate is eligible to be appointed as auditor, the minimum qualification for the post of clerk is a pass in sslc/matriculation. After subjecting the applicants to the tests the respondents appointed B. M. Belliappa and the 5th respondent herein, namely, Praveen G. Joshi to the post of auditor. Although, only one post of clerk was advertised, respondents appointed respondents 6 to 8 as clerks.

(3.) IT appears that on a previous occasion against the above appointments, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 35998 of 1998 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question his non-selection and non-appointment to the post of auditor and appointment of the said B. M. Belliappa and the 5th respondent to the post of auditor and selection and appointment of respondents 6 to 8 as clerks. That writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court by its order dated 2nd June, 2000, marked as Annexure-J. A copy of the said order is produced at page 61 of the material papers. As could be seen from para 2 of the order, the petitioner gave up his challenge to the appointment of B. M. Belliappa and restricted his challenge to the selection and appointment of other respondents only. Writ Petition No. 35998 of 1998 was disposed of by this Court reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the appointment of respondents 5 to 8.