UNION OF INDIA Vs. SMITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.R.Ramanlaal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Parthiban, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he is working as Assistant Works Manager/Administration under the control of the 2nd petitioner. THE first respondent had filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1136 of 2004, for quashing the impugned order No.1906, dated 3.12.2004, passed by the second petitioner and for a consequential direction to the petitioners to continue the first respondent as Examiner Skilled with all attendant benefits.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, had held that the first respondent was fully eligible for appointment to the post of the Examiner Semi-Skilled and as she had been sent for training by the administration of the ordnance factory and subjected to the trade test by a duly constituted Board and as she had passed the said test she had been granted the promotion. The only reason for the cancellation of the promotion of the first respondent is that certain trade unions had represented that no member from the Works Committee had attended the Trade Test Board.