LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-13

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. INDER MAL

Decided On August 03, 2012
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Appellant
V/S
INDER MAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners (employers) seek to question the order dated 09.03.2012 as passed in OA No.348/2010 whereby, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') has allowed the claim made by the applicant (respondent No.1 herein) for appointment on the post of Telecom Technical Assistant ('TTA') on the ground that the post as advertised was still available with the petitioners for one of the selected candidates in Scheduled Caste ('SC') category having left during the course of training and before appointment; and for the applicant being placed in the waiting list pertaining to the SC candidates.

(2.) THE relevant facts and background aspects of the matter had been that the applicant-respondent No.1 applied for the said post of TTA in response to an advertisement dated 06.10.2008; and ultimately secured 3rd position in the merit standing of SC candidates but was kept in the waiting list at serial number 1 as there were only 2 vacancies earmarked for the SC candidates. The applicant, while asserting that the present petitioners got an agreement bond executed from him and he was also asked to submit a demand draft in the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards security, pointed out that under a communication dated 30.07.2009, it was informed that he would be called in case any of the selected person leaving the training. The applicant submitted that at the later stage, upon coming to know of the fact that one of the trainees Shri Lalit Kumar, an SC candidate selected against the reserved vacancy, left the training half way through, he made the request to the petitioners to consider his case for appointment. Upon failing to get a favourable response, the applicant filed the OA leading to this petition.

(3.) AFTER having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to find any jurisdictional error on the part of the CAT insofar it has pronounced on the entitlement of the applicant to be taken in the training and then, for being appointed upon successful completion of the training.