Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND OTHERS versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And Others - WRIT - A No. 68229 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 4533 (25 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 68229 OF 2005

The Commissioner,

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,

New Delhi & Anr.            -------------    Petitioners              

     Versus.

The Central Administrative Tribunal,

Allahabad Bench, Allahabad & Anr. -------------  Respondents

_________

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble  Bharati Sapru, J.

This writ petition  has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.1.2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, by which the application of the respondent no. 2 has been allowed, issuing direction for her appointment.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the present petitioners had called the names from employment exchange for making appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk to work under the Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Babina Cantt, and the claim of the said respondent 2 was considered under OBC Category. The tests etc. were held and penal was prepared. The name of the respondent no. 2 was placed at serial no. 1 in the list of the successful candidates in OBC category. However, the matter was sent for approval to the higher authority. In the meanwhile, as the appointment had been made in Lucknow Zone, one Shri S.K. Pandey who had been selected therein, has been appointed in place of the respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved, respondent no. 2 filed the Application before the Tribunal, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 16.1.2004. Hence this petition.

In the instant case, Shri S.K. Pandey who has been appointed in place of the respondent no.2, who claims the appointment in reserved category belonging to OBC, has not been impleaded, for the reasons best known to the petitioners though he was a party before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has allowed the said application on the ground that once the vacancy has been kept reserved for OBC category, it could not be filled up by a general category candidate without waiting the order of approval or disapproval by the competent authority. Even today, no order of disapproval by the competent authority has been produced before us, nor any explanation could be furnished by the present petitioners that how the vacancy earmarked to the reserved category has been filled up by a general category candidate, by filling up the post by transfer.

We do not see any cogent reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

25.2.2006

AKSI


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.