Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Samesh vs Staff Selection Commission on 7 November, 2019

              Central Administrative Tribunal
               Principal Bench, New Delhi

                    OA No. 1406/2014

         New Delhi this the 07th November, 2019

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

     Sh. Samesh
     S/o Sh. Bani Singh
     R/o VPO Singhwa Khass, Teh. Hansi
     District-Hissar-Haryana-125042
     Unemployed, age 27 years                    Applicant

     (By advocate : Ms. Bimla Devi for Sh. Ajesh Luthra)
                             Versus

1.   Staff Selection Commission
     Through its Chairman,
     Headquarters,
     Block No.12, CGO Complex,
     Lodhi Road,
     New Delhi-3.                               Respondents


     (By advocate : Sh. S.M. Arif)


                             ORDER (ORAL)

Hon'ble Sh. Pradeep Kumar, M (A) 1.0. Learned proxy counsel for the applicant submitted that despite repeated efforts, the client has not contacted him. Accordingly, it appears that the applicant has lost interest to pursue this case.

2.0. The respondent's counsel produced a letter Dt. 30.10.19 written by respondents which indicates as under :- 2 OA No. 1406/2014

"2. It is intimated that as per the data available with the Commission, the applicant does not qualify in the CHSL Exam, 2013 for any of the posts. He could not be selected for the post of Data Entry Operator as he did not qualify the skill test for this post. He could also not be selected for the post of Lower Division Clerk as his marks were less than the marks of the last selected candidate of his category. Copy of the final result Write up dated 20.05.2014 and result of the applicant are enclosed as Annexure R/1 & R/2, respectively"

2. This letter dated 30.10.2019 also shows that the applicant has obtained less marks than the marks secured by the last selected candidate of his category.

3. We have seen the record and even on merits, the case is liable to be dismissed.

4. In view of the merit and lack of interest on the part of the applicant in pursing this OA, the same is dismissed. No costs.





(Pradeep Kumar)                              (Justice Vijay Lakshmi)
  Member (A)                                       Member (J)


 /sarita/