UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Original Petition filed by the Union Public Service Commission challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated June 11, 1997. The first respondent herein filed O. A. No. 611 of 1996. He is an Engineer and Ship Survey or working in the Mercantile Marine Department. He was transferred to Madras Office. He challenged the transfer order and prayed before the Tribunal that the order may be quashed. In the original application, the present appellant was made as the third respondent and he inter alia prayed that the third respondent may be directed to publish the results of the selection held on September 13, 1995 for the post of Engineer and Ship Surveyor. The appellant herein received notice in the original application and filed a detailed reply statement, wherein it was contended that the original application filed by the first respondent was not maintainable and that the appellant was not in a position to declare the results of the unreserved posts. It was a contended that the results of the selection conducted on September 13, 1995 was already published but in view of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, the result of one seat was withheld.

(2.) THE first respondent prayed that the appellant herein may be directed to furnish the results of the Selection held on September 13, 1995 and the following order was passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Counsel for the appellant contended that in the original application filed by the first respondent, there were more than one relief in the sense that the first respondent wanted to set aside the order of transfer passed against him and also called for the records relating to his selection as Engineer and Ship Surveyor held on September 13, 1995. According to the appellant, the second relief claimed against the appellant herein should not have been included in the original petition filed by the first respondent as it would amount to plurality of remedies which is prohibited under the Rules relating to Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1985. The Counsel relied on Rule 10 of the C. A. T. Rules which is to the following effect: