Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saddam Hussain vs M/O Communications on 28 March, 2019
1 OA 1202/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.1202/2017
New Delhi this the 28th day of March, 2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr.S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Saddam Hussain,
Aged about 24 years,
S/o Sh. Rahim Singh,
R/o Vill. Khanpur Ghati,
Tehsil Ferozpur, Jhirka,
Distt. Mewat. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Altaf Hussain)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Telecommunication,
New Delhi.
2. Senior Superintendent,
Head Post Office, Gurgaon Division,
Gurgaon. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Jain)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Altaf Hussain, counsel for applicant and Mr. R.K.Jain, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
i) The respondents may be directed to allow the applicant for joining for the post of GDS/BPM Khanpur Ghati District Mewat Haryana.
ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may be granted to the applicant."2 OA 1202/2017
3. The relevant facts of the case are that applicant applied for the post of Gramin Dak Sewak, Branch Post Master (GDS/ BPM) Khanpur under OBC category in response to the notice published by the respondents on 30.12.2013 calling for filling up of the said posts by OBC category candidate. Subsequently, the applicant was interviewed by the respondents and he was called upon to produce original documents for verification. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.07.2015 it was informed that the notification calling for application itself was cancelled vide office memo of even number dated 06.07.2015 due to some administrative reasons, as such his original records were returned. The said letter is extracted below:
"In pursuance of orders contained in Circle Office letter No. Staff/75-1/Rlg/XIV dated 02.06.2015, the process for appointment of GDS BPM Khanpur Ghati EDBO in account with Punhana S.O. under Gurgaon H.O. initiated vide Supdt. Gurgaon Division Notification No.A/Khanpur Ghati dated 30.12.2013, is hereby cancelled due to some administrative reasons."
Subsequently, the respondents called for filling up of the said post of GDS/BPM Khanpur treating it as a general category post. Challenging subsequent notification calling for filling up of the said post treating the said posts as general category, the applicant filed Original Suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ferozepur Jhirka, Distt., Mewat-Nuh praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from calling for interview for the said post, relevant prayer of the suit before the Civil Judge Court is extracted below:-
"That the plaintiff therefore prays that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from calling any interview for fresh appointment for the post of GDS/BPM in post office of Vill. Khanpurghati without deciding the previous cases for selection of the plaintiff for the said post with a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to decide the case of the plaintiff for his appointment 3 OA 1202/2017 immediately and appointed him for the said post may kindly be passed with costs of the suit."
In the said suit, he had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction. The Civil Judge vide order dated 7.09.2016 dismissed his application seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Challenging the said order dated 7.09.2016 the applicant had filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Distt. Mewat and the said appeal is pending for adjudication and his original suit is also pending for adjudication. Simultaneously he has filed the present OA on 23.02.2017 seeking the above stated reliefs.
4. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that as the applicant is seeking the same remedy in two judicial fora which is not permitted and as his cases seeking the same reliefs are still pending before the Civil Courts as stated above they submitted that the OA requires to be dismissed. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that his application seeking temporary injunction having been dismissed and this Tribunal is the proper forum for adjudicating his service matters this OA requires to be adjudicated on merit. But, however, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the fact that the applicant has chosen to file Suit before the Civil Courts and it is still pending, we are of the view that OA cannot be entertained.
5. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S.N.Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) 'sk'