Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Amruddin v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 19649 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7457 (24 April 2007)


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).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sri V. K. Shukla  has appeared for the respondents.

By this writ petition  the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices by which the claim of the petitioner  for appointment in the rural area as extra department Postal Mail Career, has been rejected.  Petitioner claiming appointment in the Department of Post  & Telegraph, is in fact seeking employment  against  the Central Government Department .  The remedy of the petitioner is to file a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier  this Court passed an order dated 24.10.2005 in the writ petition  filed by the petitioner being writ petition  No. 4807 of 2003 directing the respondents to consider and dispose of  the case of the petitioner hence the writ petition  be entertained by this Court. The apex Court in (1997) 3 S.C.C. page 261 L. Chandra Kumar Versus   Union of India and others  has laid down that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall entertain all original  claims and the High Court as a judicial review can only entertain the writ petition  by Division Bench against the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal.  It was further observed that  the employee of the Central Government  cannot directly, at the first instance, approach the High Court. In view of above pronouncement of the apex Court this writ petition  cannot be entertained. The order of this Court dated 24.10.2005 only directed for deciding the representation  and the question as to whether the  writ petition  is  maintainable  was neither raised nor decided hence the said order does not help the petitioner in the present case.  It is open for the petitioner to file claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner  submitted that there is delay in filing the claim petition.  It is open for the petitioner to file delay condonation application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.  The petitioner may seek remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

With the above observations the writ petition  is dismissed.    




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


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 |

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