T AKBAR ALI Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Agatti Island of Union Territory of Lakshadweep.The 2nd respondent Executive Engineer, Department of Electricity, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti published a notice dated 24-9-2001 inviting applications for the post of Chargeman/Meter Mechanic/Electrician/Mechanic under the Lakshadweep Electricity Department from qualified local candidates from Lakshadweep Island.A copy of the said notice is Ext. P1 in the original petition.In response to Ext. P1 notice, the petitioner submitted application.He was called for a written test and he passed the written test.Thereafter, he was called for interview by an Interview Board on 13-3-2001.According to the petitioner, his name was included in the select list prepared by the Interview Board.However, no further action was taken by the respondents and hence the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19-6-2001 to the 2nd respondent requesting him to expedite the matter and to appoint him at the earliest.The 2nd respondent did not give any reply to the said representation and hence the petitioner sent another representation to the Ist respondent in Aug. 2001 requesting him to give direction to publish the result.Still the respondents did not take any action in the matter. In view of the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner sent a lawyer s notice dated 19-9-2001. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 930/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.After the filing of the said original application the petitioner received a reply notice dated 11-10-2001 from the 2nd respondent along with a copy of notice No. F. No. 36/1/95-Estt/Ele alleged to have been published in the notice boardof the department. True Copies of the said notices are Exts. P7 and P8 in the original petition.In Ext. P7 reply notice is stated that candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications were found recommended by the Interview Board and hence the competent authority did not accept the recommendation and cancelled the list of candidates prepared by the Interview Board.It is also stated that the department proposes to conduct fresh test and interview for the selection of candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications.In Ext. P8 notice issued by the 2nd respondent it is stated as follows :-

(2.) Justifying the action of the respondents in canceling the selection, respondents 1 and 2 have stated in their counter affidavit as follows :-

(3.) By an order dated 6-2-2002 this Court directed the respondents to file a statement clarifying the following points :-