RAJNISH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the 1985 Act') can dismiss an application filed under sub -section (1) of Section 19 of the Act without assigning cogent reasons is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed for quashing of the order Annexure P.2 dated 9.6.2000 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal.

(2.) FOR the purpose of deciding the afore -mentioned question, we may briefly notice the facts. The petitioner joined service in M.E.S. on 21.3.1982 as Motar Pump Attendant. In February, 1996, he applied for appointment on the post of Superintendent, E & M Grade -11 (re -designated as Junior Engineer). He appeared in the written examination and viva -voce, bus his name did not figure in the select list. In February 1997, he again applied for recruitment as Junior Engineer in pursuance of the circular issued by the Western Command, Chandi Mandir. His application was returned by Delhi Zone on the ground that he could apply only for one zone. He appeared in the written examination held for selection in Bhatinda Zone, but failed to clear the same. Thereafter, he submitted representation dated 17.5.1997 complaining against non -consideration of his candidature for appointment against the vacancies earmarked for Delhi Zone and improper consideration of his candidature for appointment against the vacancies of Bhatinda Zone. Therefore, after serving legal notice upon the respondents, he filed an application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act for directing the respondents (non -applicants before the Tribunal) to appoint him as Junior Engineer in accordance with the instructions issued by the government vide circular dated 11.4.1992. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application by passing the following order:

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, an attempt has been made to justify the rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer on the ground that he had failed to clear the written test held on 10.9.1997. The respondents have also defended the summary dismissal of the petitioner's application by contending that the Tribunal is not required to record detailed reasons for refusing :o entertain an application filed under Section 19(1). They have averred that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India,, 1997(2) SLR 1 :, 1995(2) SCT 674 (SC) , the Tribunal cannot be treated as a Court and the order passed by it cannot be nullified on the ground that the same does not satisfy the requirement of a judgment or a decree as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure.