Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashutosh Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 2 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI P.T. NO.165/2010 This the 2nd day of November, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN Ashutosh Kumar Applicant ( By Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate ) Versus Union of India & Others Respondents ( By Shri R. L. Dhawan, Advocate ) O R D E R
The applicant who applied for the post of Technician Grade-III (Electrical Fitter) in the Railways, has called in question order dated 3.7.2008 deleting his name from the list of empanelled candidates for the said post. He had appeared in and qualified the written examination and had also submitted relevant original certificates, including one issued by the Social Welfare Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh in token of having passed the two years ITI course, as required by the Railway Recruitment Board. The final result was declared in the Employment News dated 15-21.9.2007. The applicant was issued appointment letter dated 4.2.2008. He was directed to appear for medical examination. When after qualifying the medical test, the applicant reported to the Divisional Railway Managers Office, Mumbai Central, he was told that his name was not included in the list of selected candidates on the ground that the institute from where he had passed the ITI course was not recognized, and order dated 3.7.2008 to that effect was passed, which the applicant has challenged. OA No.654/2009 filed by the applicant in that behalf was dismissed by this Tribunal vide orders dated 28.1.2010 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction with the Principal Bench at Delhi. The applicant was, however, given liberty to approach the appropriate Bench with regard to his grievance. The applicant has not filed the OA in the appropriate Bench and has rather chosen to file present application under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking retention of his OA in the Principal Bench. Reason for which the applicant wants retention of the OA at the Principal Bench is that he is a resident of Delhi and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1985, can approach the Chairman for retaining the OA in the Principal Bench, as it would be most inconvenient and more expensive for him being an unemployed youth to proceed to Ahmedabad or Mumbai.
2. On notice having been issued, the respondents have filed reply contesting the prayer made by the applicant, wherein it is inter alia pleaded that the applicant was required to approach the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in terms of clause 18 of the employment notice, which reads as follows:
18.0 LEGAL MATTERS:
Any legal matter arising out of this employment notice, shall fall within the legal jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad only.
3. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. The applicant filed the OA in 2009 and despite objections raised by the respondents as regards lack of territorial jurisdiction with the Principal Bench, persisted with his case which remained pending for about a year. It is only when his OA was dismissed, as mentioned above, that he chose to file the application seeking retention of the same in the Principal Bench in the month of July, 2009. Even though, such a course may not be prohibited, but the conduct of the applicant cannot be appreciated. That may, however, not be the sole ground to dismiss the application seeking retention. It may be recalled that the only ground seeking retention of the OA in the Principal Bench is that the applicant is an unemployed youth and it would be inconvenient for him to go to Ahmedabad or Mumbai. There is not a word mentioned that the applicant lacks finances. I may mention only the relevant para of the application wherein reasons are mentioned for the relief asked for. The same reads as follows:
5. That the Petitioner is a resident of Delhi and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, can approach the Honble Chairman for retaining the O.A. in the Principal Bench because it will be most inconvenient and more expensive for the Petitioner being an unemployed youth to proceed to Ahmedabad or Mumbai and file the petition. An unemployed youth may not necessarily have any constrain on finances. To make out such a case, I am of the view that the applicant had further to state that he is not engaged in any business or activity, and is also not self-employed. It had to be, if it was to be his case, stated that the applicant has no sufficient funds for which he is unable to travel to Ahmedabad or Mumbai. He is a young man and on that count, there cannot be any difficulty for him to travel. Finances, as mentioned above, it is not stated, are not available with the applicant. That apart, there is not a word stated during the course of arguments as to how, when in terms of clause 18 of the employment notice, pursuant to which only the applicant applied, any legal matter arising out of the said notice was to fall within the legal jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, the said clause can be ignored and the matter heard at the Principal Bench. It is reiterated that neither any rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents has been filed, nor has it been urged during the course of arguments as to how the applicant can get away from clause 18 of the employment notice reproduced above.
4. Finding no merit in the application seeking retention of the OA at the Principal Bench, the same is dismissed.
( V. K. Bali ) Chairman /as/