RAVINDRA RAMJORBHAI OZA Vs. WESTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (CAT), passed in Original Application No. 57 of 2003 dated 14-11-2003, petitioner challenges the same through this Special Civil Application. --------------------------------------------------------- Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

(2.) Briefly stated, petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in Western Railway Consumers Co-operative Association Limited. On closure of this Association, he applied for appointment to the post in Quasi Administration Offices in Group D. The Western Railways, vide order dated 25-07-2001 published the list of employees who were found qualified and suitable for the posts, petitioner being one of them at Sr.No.10. Thereafter, screening and medical examination were conducted as per Rules. Petitioner was found fit and suitable for absorption in Group D post with Railways, and directed to report at the Office on 05-11-2000 for completion of further formalities. The Western Railways issued appointment letter/Office Order dated 20-05-2002 appointing the petitioner on the post of Khalasi. Petitioner wanted to join, but he was not permitted to do so, despite repeated requests to that effect. Ultimately, petitioner approached CAT through Original Application No.462 of 2002. CAT, vide order dated 29-08-2002, directed respondents to treat the Original Application as representation from the petitioner, consider the same, and pass appropriate order within a month from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, appointment of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that information from Civil Authorities pointed out that petitioner was involved in a case under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner had challenged the detention order in this Court. During the hearing of the writ petition, State Government pointed out that detention order had been revoked against the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed Original Application No.57 of 2003 seeking direction against the respondents to appoint him on the post of Khalasi. However, by the impugned order, prayer has been rejected on the ground that petitioner suppressed material information in the Attestation Form. For coming to this conclusion, CAT relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003 SCC L&S 306. This order has been challenged through the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, record perused, particularly, various documents touching the question involved, and the reasons recorded by the CAT for rejecting the Original Application of the petitioner.