ANUP LAL RISHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN reference to respondent no. 8 service of notice deemed sufficient as according to the report of the Registry respondent no. 8 declined to accept the notice. According to the report of the Registry notice may stand served upon remaining respondents 6 and 7 also. Thus, no need to issue fresh notice.

(2.) THE petitioner, Anup Lal Rishi, challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19th December, 2000 arising out of O.A. No. 338 of 1995 (AnupLal Rishi V/s. Union of India and Ors.) The Tribunal declined to grant any relief to the applicant, who was Upper Division Clerk on a regular basis and on substantive post in Doordarshan Kendra, Patna, had applied for direct appointment to the post of Production Assistant.

(3.) IN the circumstances, there is no discrimination between the petitioner and the casual artists. The contention of the petitioner is not that despite his claim someone else amongst the substantive cadre has seen promotion/appointment as Production Assistant. Clearly, the petitioner was making an application for direct appointment to the post of Production Assistant. The petitioner was already in regular service. He was not a casual artist.