NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 7th December, 2010 passed in O. A. No. 150 of 2010 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court at Ranchi, whereby petitioner's OA for quashing the order dated 4.8.2010 by which his services have been terminated w. e. f. 16th August, 2010, has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was duly appointed on vacant post and his services have been terminated without notice to him. It is also submitted that even if there was any procedure of screening by any Screening Committee before giving appointment, then that was not in the knowledge of the writ petitioner and that screening could have been subsequent to the appointment also. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the facts stated in the reply in para-10, wherein it has been specifically admitted that applicant-petitioner was appointed against sanctioned and vacant post by the Presiding Officer, who is appointing authority as per the recruitment rule of the Tribunal.