HARSUKHLAL B SATASIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE facts of the present case are that the present petitioner is physically handicapped and he applied for the appointment on the post of Junior Telecome Officer and he was informed by the respondents vide letter dated 29.06.1994 that he was provisionally brought on the select list subject to the fulfillment of certain formalities. Subsequently, the petitioner was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 31.10.1994 and was asked to submit necessary medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon, similarly situated candidates were sent for training. As the petitioner was not sent for training he raised the grievance before the department, the department informed that since he suffered 40% permanent disability his case has been referred to the headquarters. Subsequently the made several representations to the department in support of his case. THEreafter, finally, he was informed vide letter dated 21.1.1999 that since there was no reservation for the post of J.T.O his candidature has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner preferred O.A. No. 252 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench, which came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Hence, this petition.

(3.) MR. Pathak has urged that the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal would not apply in the present case since, which pertains to creation of posts. We find substance in the submission made by MR. Pathak, but we are not in a position to grant any age relaxation to the petitioner, since he has become overage. Threfore, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner can not be granted.