NEELAM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Ravi Karnavat, learned standing Counsel for Railways waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. By order dated 10th April 2007 this Court had issued notice for final disposal. We have accordingly taken up the petition for final disposal and have heard Mr. G. R. Malhotra, learned advocate for the petitioner-original applicant and Mr. Ravi kamavat, learned Standing Counsel for the railways.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated are as under: The petitioner had applied for the post in Class iii Group in the Railways against the quota of handicapped persons in the category of deaf and dumb. The petitioner was selected and was appointed to post of Pipe Fitter on 9th November 2000. The said designation was later changed to Armature Winder. However, subsequently by notice dated 28th January 2003 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated as she was not eligible to be appointed against the quota of deaf and dumb persons. The petitioner challenged the same before the Jabalpur bench of the Central Administrative tribunal. After that application was disposed of, the petitioner was given another Show-Cause Notice, calling upon her to show cause why her services should not be terminated. The petitioner sent a detailed representation dated 20th november 2003 against the said Show-Cause Notice and relied upon the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"]. Thereafter, by order dated 19th December 2003, the petitioner's services were terminated.

(3.) IT appears that in the meantime the petitioner had filed Original Application no. 139 of 2004 for challenging the Show-Cause Notice dated 20th November 2003. Unfortunately, however, in spite of the termination order having already been passed on 19th December 2003, the said order was not challenged in Original application No. 139 of 2004 filed in the year 2004. When this fact came to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal permitted the petitioner to withdraw the above numbered Original Application with liberty to file a fresh application for challenging the termination order dated 19th december 2003. That permission was granted by the Tribunal on 19th February 2005 to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh application. Fresh application came to be filed by the petitioner on 7lh March 2005 being original Application No. 205 of 2005.