MAHAVEER PD MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 6. 2. 2004 passed by the learned Central Administration Tribunal, Jaipur vide which Original Application No. 495/2003 filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of result of written test held on 12. 6. 2003 and declaring notification dated 14. 8. 2003 to be null and void was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as projected in the petition reveal that the petitioner being eligible to appear in the examination for selection on the post of Diesel Chargeman (Electrical) submitted his application which was entertained. However, the written test for selection was not conducted and the respondent department readvertised the posts vide notification dated 4. 3. 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that vide notification mentioned above, reference of earlier notifications dated 21. 1. 2002 was also given. The copy of the notification has been annexed to the petition as Annex. 3. The petitioner again submitted an application for consideration of his name on the post under contention, which was entertained and the second respondent issued a list of eligible candidates on 14. 5. 2003 which included the name of the petitioner as well at S. No. 1. A copy of the list of eligible candidates issued on 14. 5. 2003 has been annexed to the petition as Annex. 4. The name of one Mr. Jagdish Prasad S/o Chajju Ram was mentioned at S. No. 12. The petitioner is stated to have been born on 14. 4. 1957 and when he submitted application in response to the first notification dated 21. 1. 2002 he was below 45 years of age. When, however, he submitted application pursuant to the second notification dated 4. 3. 2003 he was above the maximum age of 45 years that had been prescribed but his name was still included in the list of eligible candidates as per the case of the petitioner on the ground that the vacancy, which was advertised vide notification dated 21. 1. 2002 was the vacancy of the year 2001-2002 and the petitioner was eligible as on the date when the vacancy had accrued or fallen vacant. The petitioner appeared in the selection test conducted pursuant to the notification dated 4. 3. 2003. To his knowledge he secured marks enough to be declared selected in the written test. However, the respondents cancelled the entire examination vide order dated 14. 8. 2003 and issued yet another notification on 1. 9. 2003. In this notification reference of earlier notification dated 21. 1. 2003 and 4. 3. 2003 was not given. The petitioner yet submitted application for consideration of his name but the second respondent did not include his name in the list of eligible candidates. In the eligibility list names of only 9 candidates were included whereas in the last eligibility list dated 14. 5. 2003 names of 15 candidates were included. The zone of consideration, in the manner aforesaid, was reduced. the examination was conducted on 22. 4. 2004. The petitioner being aggrieved of non-inclusion of his name in the list of eligible candidates filed Original Application before the learned Tribunal with the result as already indicated above.

(3.) THE facts culled out from the pleadings of the parties which are not in dispute clearly reveal that first notification for the post under contention was issued on 21. 1. 2002. It is clearly mentioned in the notification Annex. A/2 that there is a proposal to fill up the vacant posts of Diesel Chargeman (Electrical) in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000. It is also mentioned that one post was vacant. It is thus absolutely clear and so is the case of the petitioner which has not specifically been controverted in the pleadings that the vacancy had arisen in 2001-2002. Concededly the petitioner was within the age limit as prescribed in the notification dated 21. 1. 2002. He applied for the post but the process could not be carried any further. THEre was readvertisement of the post vide notification dated 4. 3. 2003. It is admitted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that while issuing a notification dated 4. 3. 2003, reference of earlier notification dated 21. 1. 2002 was also given. Such an admission has been made in para 2 of the written statement, relevant part whereof reads as follows :- " THE petitioner was not entitled because he has crossed the upper age limit of 45 years as on 13. 4. 2002, but because of earlier notification the reference of which was made in the second notification his name found place in the eligible list to dated 14. 5. 2003. "