D S MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner assails the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short `the Tribunal") in OA No.2214/04 dated 17.5.2005 and in R.A.No. 151/2005 dated 10.8.2005 rejecting his Original Application. The relief sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the respondent should follow the post based roster for the purpose of allocation of vacancies to Scheduled Tribe candidates.

(2.) Petitioner, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community joined government service in 1997 as Assistant in the Ministry of External Affairs. On 14.11.2002, the respondent notified seventeen vacancies for the post of Section Officer, out of which, two were shown as reserved for Scheduled Castes, two for Scheduled Tribes and thirteen were shown as falling in the general category. However, it had been clearly stated that the vacancy position was tentative and subject to change. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and qualified the same. However, the respondents while notifying the final results recommended 19 candidates of which only one was a Scheduled Tribe candidate and the list did not find the name of the petitioner. After raising a grievance of his not being recommended, he preferred the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal, which has been rejected by the order impugned herein. Even the Review Petition preferred by the Petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that while recommending two additional candidates i.e a total of Nineteen candidates as opposed to Seventeen vacancies earlier notified, the respondents had failed to increase the reservation quota for Scheduled Tribe candidates proportionately. Further grievance is that in the final results published by the respondents, only one Scheduled Tribe candidate had been included. He believes that he was the only other candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, and that he was wrongfully deprived of consideration by the respondents. In response to his representation the respondents had stated in their impugned communication dated 22.7.2004 that "there was a shortfall of one Scheduled Tribe slot in the recruitment year 2002-03 which was through examination for the year". The petitioner had sought the quashing of this communication dated 22.7.2004 as well before the Tribunal. Curiously we find that this communication has not been filed before this Court and no specific relief seeking to quash the said communication has been made in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.