Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
V M Paradhi vs M/O Defence on 17 November, 2017
1 OA No.698/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.698/2017
Date of Decision: 17.11.2017.
CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI ARVIND J. ROHEE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI R. VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Shri Vinod Manga Paradhi
R/at A/P. Mandal, Tal. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon 425 401.
Address for service of Notice:
Shri Saagar Mane,
Advocate for the Applicant,
O/at Block No.13, 3rd Floor,
Ram-kripa Bldg., Lt. Dilip Gupte
Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016. ... Applicant
(Advocate Shri S.A. Mane )
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Ahmadnagar Cantonment Board,
Ahmadnagar 414 002. ... Respondents
ORDER (Oral)
Per : Shri A.J. Rohee, Member (J)
Today when the matter is called out for admission, neither the Applicant nor Shri S.A. Mane, learned Advocate for him remained present.
2. The claim is for appointment to the post of Driver as reserved category candidate.
3. The following reliefs are sought in this OA;
"8.a) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon'ble 2 OA No.698/2017 Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to conduct and complete the recruitment process of the applicant to the post of Driver from S.T. Reserved category and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to appoint the applicant on the said post with all the consequential service benefits.
8.b) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare that the reason given by the respondent no.2 to cancel the recruitment process in middle is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and further be pleased to declare that the act of the respondent no.2 in cancelling the recruitment process is illegal and arbitrary.
8.c) Costs of this petition be provided for''
8.d) Any other suitable relief in favour of the applicant may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
4. Record shows that the OA is filed on 12.07.2016. Thereafter, the office has drawn as many as nine office objections. The same were communicated to the learned Advocate for the applicant on 27.06.2017 and 12.07.2017. However, nobody turned up to remove the office objections. The Registry has therefore, placed this OA before this Tribunal for consideration.
5. In view of the fact that office objections are not removed inspite of intimation given to the applicant's Advocate, the OA cannot proceed further. In the meantime, learned Advocate for the applicant has also not taken any steps to get the matter circulated before this Tribunal.
6. Hence, the OA stands dismissed in default of appearance of Applicant and his Advocate and also for failing to remove the office objections, at the admission stage. 3 OA No.698/2017
7. Registry to forward copy of this order to both the parties.
(R. Vijaykumar) (Arvind J. Rohee) Member (A) Member(J) dm.