Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dahiya vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI OA No.894/2012 Dated this Saturday the 17th day of March, 2012. Honble Mr.Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Member(J) Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dahiya, C/o Dharmbir Singh, VPO Kair, Near Najafgarh, Outer West Delhi, Delhi 110 043. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Atul Kumar ) Vs. 1. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block New Delhi. 2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, through Commissioner (CCA), 6th Floor, HUDA, Vishata Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 3. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Director, CGO Compex Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate : Shri S.M.Arif for Respondent no.3 ) ORDER (ORAL)
By Sh. Shailendra Pandey, The applicant had appeared in the Combined Level Graduate Exam, 2010 and on the basis of the results declared he was selected for appointment to the post of Inspector of Income Tax in CBDT but was allotted to Kochi Zone instead of Delhi Zone, which was his first preference.
2. The grievance of the applicant is that candidates, lower in rank (on the basis of merit-cum-performance than him, have been allocated zones of their choice but he has been discriminated against in the matter. He has, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following direction:-
b) direct the respondent to appoint the applicant on his first preference (Delhi) as candidates below his rank have been considered for regions of Delhi will all the consequential benefits.
3. Although in para 6 of the OA he has stated that he has made verbal and written representations for redressal of his grievance to the respondents in the matter, we find no such representation attached to the OA, nor are have details of persons lower in merit than him, who have been allocated Delhi region, been indicated. In such circumstances, we would have normally dismissed this OA, but the applicants counsel had made a request that the applicant may be allowed to file a detailed representation to Respondent no.2 in the matter which should be decided in the fixed time frame.
4. In view of the above, we dispose of this OA as a special case [not to be quoted as a precedent] by giving two weeks time (from the date of receipt of this order) to the applicant to make a representation to Respondent No.2 in the matter giving full details and on receipt of such representation (if made within the time prescribed), Respondent No.2, after due verification of the facts, may decide the representation in accordance with rules and communicate the decisions to the applicant through a speaking order, within six weeks of receipt of such representation.
5. No order as to costs.
( A.K.Bhardwaj ) ( Shailendra Pandey ) Member (J) Member (A) uma