Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
S Bhuta Naik vs All India Radio on 4 March, 2024
OA/173/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/0173/2024
HYDERABAD, this the 04th day of March, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, JudicialMember
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
Mr. S. Bhuta Naik S/o S. Vasuram Naik,
Age about 53 Year's,
Working as Technician Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad.
R/o: Ramnuja Colony, RNo-15,
Munugunoor, HayathNagar, Hyd.
...Applicant.
(By Advocate : Mr. K Sudhaker Reddy)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by it's Secretary
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Directorate General,
DoorDarshan Prasar Bharthi,
Prasar Bharthi Towers New Delhi.
3. The Addl Director General (A) (SZ),
All India Radio & Doordarshan Akashavani Bhavan,
Parliament Street New Delhi 110 011.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. A Radhakrishna, Sr. PC for CG)
-----
Page 1 of 4
OA/173/2024
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) Heard Mr. K Sudhaker Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By this Original Application the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
"to declare the action of the respondents here in not allowing the applicant to appear for the Examination held on 18-12-2005 for the post of Engineering Assistant under a special recruitment drive for SC/ST backlog Vacancies after issuing the Admit Card bearing No. N230935 in pursuance of the Advt No. 28/118, dated: 15- 21/10/2005 as illegal and arbitrary and clear violation of the applicants fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, And Consequently direct the respondents here in to appoint the applicant as Engineering Assistant with all the consequential benefits and pass such order or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case."
3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, since the Registry has raised an objection and not numbered the O.A. on the ground that the O.A. is barred by limitation, from the relief itself, it seems that the cause of action arose for the applicant in the year 2005 because of his overage and he has not been allowed to participate in the said examination. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the post which is reserved for ST, thereby the applicant is very well eligible to compete for the said examination; however, age relaxation has not been granted. Therefore, he approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Though the applicant has made several representations Page 2 of 4 OA/173/2024 subsequently in the years 2007 and 2010, as per the criteria wherein the departmental candidate can appear up to the age of 45. However, in the special drive, the age relaxation was not granted, though it has been initiated to fill up the backlog. For the first time in the year 2017, the respondents department has filed a reply in response to the notice of the National Commission for Schedule Tribes.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, being aggrieved, approached this Tribunal as such, there is no cognizance taken by the department and there is a recurring cause of action.
5. It is to be noted that the cause of action arose for the applicant as per the Administrative Tribunal Act in the year 2006. It is also to be noted that the applicant has to knock the doors for justice in October 2006; otherwise, it can be extended up to a certain level, i.e., upon satisfactory submissions, if any, made by the applicant. It is also to be noted that when the notification specified the age limit for the departmental candidate, if at all it is not as per the law and it is against the Constitution, it was open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal, being a service grievances Tribunal, immediately, well within the limitation. However, the applicant has not approached and has kept quiet till today, though he pursued his matter before the National Commission for Schedule Tribes. It is to be noted that when there is a special court meant to redress their grievances, particularly against the services that are parallelly remitted, can also be exhausted. However, we are not inclined to grant any relief since the applicant's O.A. is not only barred by the limitation but also when he has Page 3 of 4 OA/173/2024 himself appeared for the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination in the year 2007 and 2010 and he has not made out the facts which are made in the O.A., which is not maintainable.
6. In view of the above, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVEMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/SB/
Page 4 of 4