UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions pertain to the filling up of the post of Draughtsman Grade-II in the Public Works Department, Puducherry. The issue arises under the following circumstances. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Puducherry issued a notification dated 31.7.2006 calling for applications for the post of Draughtsman and the total vacancies notified were 25. The details of the vacancies were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_751_TLMAD0_2010Html1.htm</FRM> Among those vacancies, 3 vacancies were horizontally reserved for Ex-Servicemen, 1 vacancy for Physically Handicapped person and 1 for Meritorious Sportsperson. One Thiru S.Vengadeswaran, the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.527 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") is a degree holder in Civil Engineering and he also possesses a Diploma in Civil Engineering. As per the eligibility and other qualifications, he is eligible and fully qualified for the post of Draughtsman. He applied to the said post and his name was also sponsored by the employment exchange. Along with him, one N.Jayaraman, the third respondent in the original application (hereinafter referred to as "the third respondent) also applied. The said Jayaraman was selected as against the one vacancy reserved for meritorious sportsperson. A list containing the names of 22 candidates selected for the posts was published on 27.12.2006. As the select list did not contain the name of the applicant, he was under the impression that his name would be considered as against the one vacancy reserved for meritorious sportsperson, as he was the winner in the 20th Senior Men's National Atya-Patya Championship held during 2005-2006 and he also participated in the 47th Winter National Bridge Championship held in Chennai. Further, he had participated in the VIII State Atya-Patya Championship. He was awarded gold medal as well.

(2.) As his name was not even considered as against the seat reserved for meritorious sportsperson and the name of the candidate selected against the said vacancy was not known, he sought information under the Right to Information Act and he was informed that the third respondent was appointed to the said vacancy. He also came to know that the third respondent had only participated in the National Sports and he was not a winner. In terms of the Office Memorandum dated 4.8.80, which was further clarified by a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 4.5.95, the applicant ought to have been considered in preference to the third respondent. Hence he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection of the third respondent and for a further direction that he should be appointed to the post of Draughtsman as against the one vacancy reserved for meritorious sportsperson. That application was allowed and the selection of the third respondent was set aside with a further direction that the applicant should be appointed to the said post. This order is questioned by the Union Territory of Puducherry in W.P.No.26963 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the official respondents"). As the selection and appointment of the third respondent was set aside, he has filed W.P.No.26535 of 2009. As both the writ petitions concern with the same order, they are taken up together and disposed of by this order.

(3.) We have heard Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) for the petitioner in W.P.No.26963 of 2009, namely, the official respondents, Mr.Karthik Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26535 of 2009, namely, the third respondent and Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent in both the writ petitions, namely, the applicant.