K RAVICHANDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and validity of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 267 of 2000 dated 20th August, 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's prayer for giving him appointment as AEN Group 'B' with effect from 12.8.96 with all consequential benefits was rejected.

(2.) THE case suffered a chequered history. The petitioner after having passed Three Years' Diploma Course in Civil Engineering on completion of S.S.C. Examination was appointed as a 'Work Mistri' and joined as such on 9.12.1988 in the scale of pay Rs. 1400 2300/ by virtue of a competition (written and viva voce) pursuant to an advertisement made to that effect. His service was regularised on satisfactory completion of probation on 10.6.89. By a letter dated 28.2.95 applications were invited for filling up 30% of the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (AEN) from all staffs of Civil Engineering Department who had completed five years' of regular service in the scale of pay Rs. 1400 2300/ as an 1st November, 1994. The petitioner is said to have completed 5 years' of regular service without any fortuitous service in the said scale. Therefore, he applied for the post of Assistant Engineer, AEN and accordingly he was permitted to sit in the written test held on 12.11.95. The petitioner was selected along with other 38 candidates in the written test by securing more than 60% marks. From out of 38 candidates only 22 candidates were called to attend the interview on 19.2. 96, vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition, but the said interview was postponed and it was finally held on 12,8.96 and a panel of 16 candidates was prepared vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It was further noticed that the petitioner was included among 22 candidates in order of merit, vide Annexure 1, but he was improperly excluded from the panel, the reason which he could ascertain after the judgment passed by this Court in OJC No. 14206 of 1998 upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 128 of 1996 was that he was not a party in that earlier case. Even though the petitioner was more meritorious than Sri A. R. Jena, whose name was included in Serial No. 16 of the panel, but the name of the petitioner was excluded.

(3.) THE opp. parties being undeterred by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged the same in a writ petition in this Court in OJC No. 14206 of 1998 and this Court by judgment dated 4.5.99 upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.