Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Haridvar Sharma vs Railway on 2 February, 2021
1 OA 66 of 2021 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA OA/051/00066/2021 Date of Order :02.02.2021 COR AM HON'BLE MR. M.C.VERMA, ...... .................... JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Haridvar Sharma, son of Bhikhari Sharma, R/o Vill+PO+PS Vill+PO+PS--
Bikramganj, District District-Rohtas, Rohtas, Bihar, PIN-802212, PIN Reg. No. 150272623.
.......... Applicant.
- By Advocate : Shri Shiv Sagar Sharma.
-Versus Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi Delhi-110001.
2. The General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai Mumbai-400001.
3. The Railway Recruitment Board, Mumbai, through the Secretar Secretary, y, Divisional Railway Office Compound, Mumbai Central Central-400008.
4. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Solapur, Maharashtra, PIN PIN-413001.
5. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Central railway, CST Mumbai, CR. No. 04/2020, Pin Pin-400001.
400001.
......... Respondents.
By Advocate :- Shri S.K.Ravi, ld. SC O R D E R [ ORAL] Per M.C.Verma, Member (Judl.) (Judl.):- Heard. The matter is at notice stage hearing. Having received advance copy of OA, Shri S.K. Ravi Advocate has appeared for the respondents. Grievances of the applicant is that, after being selected, he is not being given appointment order.
2 OA 66 of 2021
2. Learned counsel for applicant Shri Shiv Sagar Sharma submits that some iinfirmity nfirmity has remained in the OA before preferring the OA applicant could not represent to the respondents nor he has been apprised in writing as to why respondents are not giving appointment to the applicant. That he come to know that the reason may be of non treating of him a candidate of ST/OBC. That caste certificate of the applicant is also not part and par parcel of the OA and taking in view said infirmities the applicant does not want to press th thee OA rather he want to withdraw this OA to approach before before the appropriate forum for appropriate relief.
2. Learned counsel Shri S.K. Ravi submits that OA otherwise is not maintainable as it is suffers from infirmity of territorial jurisdiction as well because the matter relates to RRB Mumbai hence, this Tribunal have no jurisdiction to entertain the OA. However when applicant wants to withdraw the OA, he merely may urge to pass appropriate order.
3. Having taken note of entirety, submission of appicant's counsel that applicant wants to withdraw the OA, we think it would not be proper to advert to at this stage as to whether this Bench is having or not the jurisdiction, tthe he OA is dismissed as withdrawn.
[ Sunil Kumar Sinha ] [ M.C. Verma ] Member (A) Member (J) Pkl/