SHRI SIDHARTHA MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party members and this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner.

(2.) Ventilating his grievance against not posting in the post of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk-III and not giving the service benefit thereof to him, the writ petitioner filed Original Application No. 357 of 2000 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. That application was taken up for consideration by the learned Vice-Chairman and Member (Judicial) on 18.1.2001 in the absence of the counsel for the parties as well as the parties themselves and dismissed the said Original Application on merit. Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel states that an application filed by the writ petitioner to recall that order and to hear on merit was also rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) On consideration of the procedure to be adopted, we find that if the applicant was not present on the date of hearing, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an order on merit dismissing the claim of the applicant. At best the original application should have been dismissed for default of the applicant. Apart from that, we also see that learned Tribunal has confused the issue relating to the vacancy as against which the applicant appeared as the departmental candidate and succeeded. Under such circumstance, without further analyzing the facts and the merit of the contention of the parties, we set aside the order dated 18.1.2001. Annexure-5, and remand the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal to hear and dispose of the same of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petitioner undertakes to produce a certified copy of this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, no requisites need by filed to communicate the writ. Petition allowed.