UMESH CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .W.J.C. No. 3327 of 2000 has been preferred by Dr. Umesh Chandra Singh challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.103 of 1999 dated 15.2.2000 C.W.J.C. No. 9956/2000 has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, by order dated 19.1.2001 both the matters were connected and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BY O.A.No.103/99, the Central Administrative Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Addl.Medical Officer (AMO) Grade -ll on ad -hoc basis vide order dated 30.5.85 on temporary basis and ad -hoc basis for a period of six months or till the name of regular appointee becomes available from the Union Public Service Commission, whichever was earlier and in view of the fact that the panel from the U.P.S.C. was available and, as the petitioner had also been considered and after taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. A. K. Jain and others V/s. The Union of India and others reported in 1987 Supp. SSC 497. that as the ad -hoc appointee Doctors were placed in two category, i.e. first being those who were appointed up to 1.10.84 and second who were appointed subsequently and as the petitioner had been subsequently appointed, directed that the same ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgment should be followed in the case of the petitioner also and the Railway shall grant relaxation in age to the extent of the period of service rendered by the petitioner and consider his case at the time of fresh appointment, if the petitioner chooses to apply for such selection before the U.P.S.C.

(3.) AS far as the Union of India is concerned, they have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed purely on ad -hoc basis and had been considered by the Union Public Service Commission and had been declared unfit for appointment. The petitioner has also become over age. As such, direction for further consideration should not have been given by the Tribunal in its order.