HITESH SAGAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application in OA 289/2010. The CAT also rejected his application for review by order dated 10.12.2010. The petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Government of India Press"), discharging/terminating him from its service on 18.01.2010.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner responded through application to the advertisement by the Government of India Press, seeking applications from candidates for the post of Artist Retoucher on temporary basis in Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 -9000/ -. The qualifications required for the post of Artist Retoucher was "degree in Printing Technology from a recognised university or institution, with two years experience or diploma in Printing Technology (Offset) from a recognized Institute of Printing and three years experience in Scanning, Planning and Retouching in an offset establishment of repute". The petitioner was interviewed after he was successful in a trade test, he joined the services pursuant to the offer of temporary appointment on 13.03.2008. In support of his claim that he possessed the requisite experience, the petitioner had relied upon two certificates issued by M/s. Peregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that he worked with that organization for the period 01.05.2004 to 27.01.2007. He also relied upon a certificate issued by M/s. Paxton Trexim Private Ltd. (HT Media) stating that he had worked with that organisation between 29.08.2003 to 30.04.2004 as a Trainee Executive in production department.

(3.) AFTER considering the parties' contentions, the CAT, by its impugned order dated 24.09.2010 rejected the petitioner's application principally on the basis that temporary government appointee had no enforceable right to such employment and that the impugned order terminating his services on 18.1.2010 was not stigmatic. The petitioner's attempt to have the order reviewed was unsuccessful.