Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.JAYAKUMAR versus SR.D.P.O.., S RLYS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.JAYAKUMAR v. SR.D.P.O.., S RLYS - OP No. 28029 of 2001(S) [2007] RD-KL 13103 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 28029 of 2001(S)

1. G.JAYAKUMAR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SR.D.P.O.., S RLYS
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SC, RAILWAYS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ

O.P. 28029/2001

Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan, J.

This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.554/2001. Petitioner was working as a Gang mate participated in the written test for selection and appointment to the post of Supervisor, Permanent Way. Though he had participated in the written test, he was not called for viva- voce. Eight persons belonging to general category were called upon to participate in the viva voce. Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community then submitted an application before the C.A.T.

2. First respondent had filed a statement before the Tribunal stating that only those candidates who had obtained 60% marks in the written test alone were called for the viva voce and the petitioner did not satisfy that requirement. Hence he was not called for the viva voce. Tribunal, therefore, rejected the application, since he had not satisfied the minimum required marks of 60%. O.P.28029/2001 2 Petitioner had secured only 51%marks in the written test, hence was not eligible to be called for Viva voce.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality in not calling the petitioner for viva voce test. Writ petition lacks merits and hence dismissed. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge ANTONY DOMINIC Judge mrcs


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.