LAWS(APH)-2013-4-121

R MARKANDEYA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 22, 2013
R Markandeya Kumar Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 2.4.2013, in OA No. 827 of 2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner was one of the candidates empanelled vide proceedings, dated 17.4.1996, to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist, pursuant to the notification issued in Employment Notice No. 4/95, dated 29.10.1995, by respondent No. 4. He was appointed and posted at Guntakal Division of South Central Railway Zone. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and was posted to work under Statistical and Analysis Office of South Central Railway Zone.

(2.) On a complaint being filed, questioning the selections made pursuant to notification, dated 29.10.1995, C.B.I. has registered a case against the Chairman, Member Secretary, Senior Clerk and some other officials of the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, alleging that they entered into a criminal conspiracy by abusing their official position and selected their interested persons pursuant to notification, dated 29.10.1995. Basing on the preliminary report of the C.B.I. and after considering the matter in entirety, respondent No. 1-Board has decided to cancel the entire panel and terminated the services of the candidates, who were empanelled and appointed pursuant to notification, dated 29.10.1995.

(3.) When the services of one O. Chakradhar, who was also selected pursuant to the notification, dated 29.10.1995, were terminated, he approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 1265 of 1999, which was allowed by setting aside the order of termination. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed WP No. 4898 of 2000 before this Court, and this Court, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents carried the matter by way of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 1326 of 2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was allowed by order, dated 19.2.2002. While allowing the appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court held as under: