Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Lajwanti D/O Sh. Ratten Lal Saini vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 17 March, 2009

      

  

  

 	CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH

RA No. 166/2008
in
OA No. 1151/2007


New Delhi this the 17th day of  March, 2009

	Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
	Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A)

	Lajwanti D/o Sh. Ratten Lal Saini,
	R/o Village Bhora Kalan,
	Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana).					 Applicant
	
(By Advocate Shri M.K.Bhardwaj )

VERSUS

	Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
		Through

The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

The Secretary,
DSSSB,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi.				     Respondents


(By  Advocate Shri  Ajesh Luthra )

O R D E R (ORAL)

	( Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) :


Mr. Bhardwaj appeared for the applicants. He submits that in view of the order of the High Court of a later date, the order requires to be reviewed. He also cites a certificate issued by the Nursing Council dated 8.8.2008, and points out that qualifications of ANM and MPHW (F) are treated as identical in nature and worth.

-2-

2. But these do not appear to be sufficient grounds for a Review. The notified qualification was ANM, and in the course of selection the respondents could not have found or permitted a person not holding the qualification, as coming within the eligible zone. Recognition of such claim would be conferring advantage to certain candidates alone, overlooking the fact that so many other persons would have thereby been in disadvantageous position. The Court has to take note of the rights of others also, who might feel that they have been given a raw deal.

3. The judgment of the High Court also may not e a sufficient circumstance for us to review our orders, since we have rested our order on reasoning which appeared to be valid to us.

4. Resultantly the RA is dismissed.

( N.D. Dayal )                                              ( M. Ramachandran)
	  Member (A)                                                Vice Chairman (J)

	sk