K DHANIGAIVEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.900 of 2010, dated 2.11.2011, the applicant before the Tribunal, has come forward with the present writ petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows :- Petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and got fully qualified for the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. The second respondent had issued a notification dated 31.7.2006 calling for applications for filling up 25 posts of Draughtsman Grade II and the details of vacancies as per the reservation policy was MBC-04; OBC-03; SC-04 and General Category -14. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 published the select list and a wait list consisting of 10 candidates. The petitioner's name could not find a place in the selection list, however, he was placed first in the wait list under OBC category. The petitioner has secured 60 marks and the third respondent has secured 58 marks in the examination. However, it was informed that the third respondent was selected under Meritorious Sports Persons quota (in short "MSP quota"). While the matter stood thus, one Mr. Vengadeswaran, who was not selected under MSP quota, challenged the appointment of the third respondent by filing O.A.No.527 of 2008 before the Tribunal under MSP quota. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.527 of 2008 and set aside the appointment of Respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Department as well as Respondent No.3 preferred two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.26963 & 26535 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.4.2010, dismissed the writ petitions by observing as follows :-

(3.) THE Tribunal, after considering the contentions raised, though observed that the appointment of the third respondent is due to the protection given under the order of the High Court and it is not an appointment by operating the waiting list prepared in 2006, refused to interfere with the appointment of the third respondent as the High Court had considered on humanitarian ground, thereby rejected the O.A. of the petitioner. The said order is under challenge.