Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
B Revathy vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 8 August, 2017
Lola CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH Dated the Tuesday 8" day of August Two Thousand And Seventeen PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. RB. RAMANUJAM, MEMBER (A) O.AJSIO/DL234/2017 B. Revathy, No.8, Subramaniam Street, Thillal Nagar, Puducherry- 605 110.
. Applicant (By Advocate : M/s, Gnanadesikan Law Associates} ¥S.
1) The Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry;
2) K, Magesweari, No.S4, Pudhu Nagar North, Karikalampakkam, Puducherry- GO5 OOF:
3) K, Hakkiya, No.12, Subramani Koll Street, Muthlya Mudhaliyarpet, Muthialpet, Puducherry- 605 603, .. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. R. Syed Musftafa} {Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. R. Ramanujam, Member (A)) Applicant has filed the OA seeking the following rellefs:-
Hes to call for the proceedings in Notification No. A.12020/9/2015/E5/DHFWS/2 dated 4.1.2017 and quash the same in so far as including the respondents 2 & 3 as Senior Laboratory Technician as Serial No.1 and Serial No.2 in the Wait List category for the post of Senior Laboratory Technician and further direct the 1° respondent to appoint the applicant as Senior Laboratory Technician by notionally placing the applicant in the Serial No.1 in the Wait List in unreserved category and quash the appointment of the respondents 2 & 3 as Senior Laboratory Technician."
2. The case of the applicant ig that she is a Graduate in Chemistry. She registered her educational qualifications in Employment Exchange on 29.9.2005 and her Employrnent Exchange Card No. is 008153. In response to a notification dated 26.8.2015 of the 1° respondent inviting applications for the post of Senior Laboratory Technician, she applied for the said post on 33.09.2015. The said notification stated that 1.5 marks would be awarded for every completed year from the date of registration in the Employment Exchange till the last date for receipt of duly filled in application. This weightage was subject to a maximum of 15 marks.
3. When the applicant was not selected, she obtained information through the Right to information Act dated 24.2.2017 as per which she had been a 3 of 8 awarded 13.50 marks for the period of waiting after registration with Employment Exchange.
4. itis alleged that the respondents had taken 25.09.2015 as a last date for submitting the application whereas the last date for receipt of the application was 06.10.2015 even as per the respondent's awn admission. Had the respondents taken 06.10.2015 as a last date for receipt of application, she would have been awarded the maximum Employment Weightage Marks of 15 as she had completed 10 years after registration. it is further submitted that the respondents had calculated the degree marks as 70.44 whereas the University average showed 72.6 (First Class) which is another error committed by the respondent, Wf the University Marks are taken correctly, it would be 72.6 +15 (for registration with Employment Exchange}. In such a case, the total would be 87.6%. in the Wait list, one K. Mageswari in General Category with 87.39% had been placed at Serial No.1 whereas she should be placed at Serial No.2 after the applicant. Hence, the applicant has approached the Tribunal for the aforesaid relief.
5. Heard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant applied for the past of Senior Laboratory Technician in response to Annexure-4 advertisement dated 26.08.2015. The applicant, having been registered in Employment Exchange on 29.9.2005 was entitled to the full benefit of 15 marks at the rate of 1.5 marks per annum, However, the applicant had been ara awarded only 13.5 marks. Further the respondent had taken University marks as 70.44 instead of the average 72.6 as claimed by the applicant. Had the respondents awarded marks properly, applicant's pesition would have been No.D in the Wait List.
6. learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant would be satisfied if she is permitted to make a representation with regard to her grievance to respondent No.1 and the same is directed to be disposed of within a time limit by 8 reasoned and speaking order, F Mr, R. Syed Mustafa, Standing counsel! for Puducherry, takes notices for the respondents and submits that he had no objection to the above prayer.
8, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the O.A. could be disposed of by permitting the applicant to make a representation in respect of her grievance to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, respondent No.1 could pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter.
9, Parties permitted/directed accordingly. O.A. is disposed of at the . admission stage without going into the substantive merits of the case. No 2 costs.