Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Unknown vs Mr. Salim Khan on 22 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR *** ORDER SHEET ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ____________________________________________________ Date: 22.12.2016 MA No. 291/00585/2016 (OA No.291/00167/2016) Mr. Salim Khan, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Rajendra Vaish, Counsel for respondents.
It is a DB matter. DB is not formed today.
The case has come up on MA No.291/00585/2016 filed by the counsel for applicant submitting that the Office of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has issued offer of appointment dated 01.12.2016(Ann.A/1 in the MA) to the applicant for the post of Accountant in UR category and by another letter of the same date the applicant has been asked to fill up certain forms. In this context counsel for the applicant submits that this OA has been filed for treating the applicant as falling in the OBC category and therefore, any offer of appointment treating her to be UR category is not valid because the applicant belongs to OBC category and he prays that the same may be stayed. Counsel for the applicant also submits that as per the IR dated 14.03.2016 the respondents were directed to keep the result of the applicant in a sealed cover but rather than that the result has been declared and the applicant has been offered appointment under the UR category.
In this regard counsel for respondents submits that in the first place this order has been issued by the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution which has not been impleaded as party respondent in the OA and offer of appointment issued by a particular Department which is not a respondent cannot therefore, be stayed. He further submits that as per the condition 5(J) of the employment notice (Ann.A/2) the OBC certificate in the prescribed format issued between 02.06.2012 and upto 29.11.2015 only was to be accepted and the applicant has submitted the OBC certificate dated 14.01.2016 (Ann.A/6) and on this ground itself she has no case to be considered in OBC category and opposed the prayer for grant of any IR.
Considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the record. As brought out by the counsel for respondents an offer of appointment has been issued by the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution which is not even a party respondent in OA and, therefore, at this stage, there is no ground to the stay the said order. Further the claim of the applicant to be considered in OBC category and whether the condition of prescribed time limit for cut off date of issue of OBC certificate is arbitrary has been challenged in the OA and is yet to be decided after the matter is heard finally. On this ground also, therefore, there is no justification to stay the offer of appointment made by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution as at Ann.A/1 filed with the MA. In in any case it is an offer of appointment and it is for the applicant to use his discretion in that regard.
MA is disposed of accordingly as above. Copy of this order may be provided to the counsel for the respondents.
(Meenakshi Hooja) Member (A) Adm/