T. PAJANIAMMALLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, dated 28.11.2019, in RA.No.54 of 2013 in OA.No.1122 of 2010, on the file of the 4th Respondent/ Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai and to direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, with effect from the date, on which the other selected candidates were appointed, with all other consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to filing of this Writ Petition, as culled out from the typed set of papers, are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that only when the Petitioner had questioned the inclusion of the 3rd Respondent in the selection list, by way of representation, though the 3rd Respondent had secured lesser marks than that of the Petitioner, only in order to accommodate the 3rd Respondent, the marks had been manipulated and after manipulation, the selection list was published in the internet and the marks obtained by the 3rd Respondent was increased, but at the same time, the marks obtained by the Petitioner was reduced and that the decrease and increase in marks were done only in respect of the oral interview and hence, the selection of the 3rd Respondent is illegal and liable to be quashed. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no error apparent on the face of record whatsoever in the order passed by the Tribunal in the OA and that the Tribunal, in the review application, has acted on misconception and in such circumstances, he would pray for allowing this Writ Petition, as prayed for.