Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Brajesh Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.998/2010
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 18th day of March, 2016
SHRI G.P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
DR. MURTAZA ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Brajesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Krishan Sharma Aged about 26 years
R/o C/o Sambu Prasad Verma, Kishori Mohalla Civil Lines Dindori
Distt. Dindori (M.P.) 481880 -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Amardeep Gupta proxy counsel for
Shri Shashank Shekhar)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources
Development at Sastri Bhawan New Delhi 110001
2. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
Through Commissioner A-39, Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110001
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Regional Office 160 Zone II M.P.Nagar Bhopal 462001
4. The Principal Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Dhamangaon
District Dindori (M.P.) 481880
5. Shri Nukeshwar Rajput Through Collector/Chairman
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Dhamangaon
District Dindori (M.P.) 481880 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Praveen Namdeo for official respondents
& Shri Gautam Prasad for respondent No.5)
(Date of reserving the order:15.03.2016)
O R D E R
By G.P. Singhal, Administrative Member.-
By filing this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for setting aside of the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for brevity LDC) and direction to the respondents to issue appointment to the applicant on the post of LDC with all consequential benefits.
2. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dhammangaon, Dinodri sought names from the Employment Exchange for the purpose of filling of the post of LDC vide its letter dated 01/27.09.2006 and the District Employment Officer submitted eight names for this purpose, which included the name of the applicant as well as that of private respondent. Trade test was held on 18.3.2007 in which three candidates including the applicant and private respondent qualified. The respondent No.5 has been selected and appointed after due procedure of selection and appointment as per the criteria of the respondent-Samiti. The applicant has claimed that in the typing test the number of mistakes committed by the private-respondent was six, whereas that of the applicant was four, still the official-respondents have selected the private respondent ignoring the claim of the applicant.
3. Heard the learned counsel of parties and carefully perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
4. A meeting of the selection committee was held on 12.7.2008 and merit list was prepared of the candidates who had qualified in the trade test held on 18.3.2007. The selection committee prepared a comparative chart (Annexure R-7) on the basis of the guidelines of the Samiti dated 7.5.2003 and 22.8.2006 (Annexures R-5 & R-6 respectively). We find that marks were given on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in Class XII or equal, and weightage of marks were also given to the next higher qualification and experience. Respondent No.5 Nukeshwar, had obtained 7.98 marks, whereas the next candidate Kajleshwar obtained 7.73 marks and the applicant obtained only 6.53 marks. Accordingly, a comparative statement of the merit list dated 12.7.2008 (Annexure R-8) was prepared, in which respondent no.5 has been placed at serial no.1 and the applicant was placed at serial no.3, and after approval of the Regional office, the respondent No.5 has been appointed on the post of LDC (UR) vide order dated 8.11.2008 and he has joined on 2.1.2009. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in the contention of the applicant that since in the typing test the number of mistakes committed by the private-respondent was six, whereas that of the applicant was four, and therefore he should have been appointed, and the same is accordingly rejected. Thus, the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim for grant of appointment to him in place of respondent No.5.
5. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(Dr. Murtaza Ali) (G.P. Singhal)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
rkv
3
Sub: appointment ` OA998/2010
Page 3 of 3