Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pawan Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 31 October, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No. 3776/2017
New Delhi, this the 31st day of October, 2017
Hon'ble Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A)
Mr. Pawan Kumar
S/o. Sh. Naresh Kumar Yadav,
R/o. H. No. 350, Gali Old Allahabad Bank,
VPO-Rajokri, New Delhi -110 038. ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yashpal Rangi)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through :
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Director of Education
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, GNCTD, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
3rd Floor, UTCS Building,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
New Delhi. ....Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed, Member (J) :
Sh. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the fact that the applicant missed to disclose his caste while filling up the form for appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science). The applicant never disclosed his caste as OBC, as he was not having non creamy layer certificate at that moment. Learned counsel also contended that he had a 2 O.A 3776/2017 notion that he had to give OBC non creamy layer certificate while submitting the form as it was not with him at that point of time he did not disclose his OBC status but now he has come to know that the certificate for non creamy layer is required to be produced at the time of interview only. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has secured much higher marks in merit under OBC category and he states that he should be treated as an OBC candidate. In this regard, he has given a representation to the respondents vide letter dated 14.07.2017 and states that yet no decision has been taken by the respondents. At this stage, counsel for the applicant states that he would be happy and satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondents by this Tribunal to decide his representation within a stipulated time frame.
2. Taking into consideration the limited prayer of the counsel for the applicant, we feel, it is unnecessary to keep the O.A pending. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take a reasoned decision on the pending representation of the applicant dated 14.07.2017 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and inform him.
3. The O.A is disposed of. It is made clear that nothing has been commented on merit of the case. No costs.
(Uday Kumar Varma) (Jasmine Ahmed) Member (A) Member (J) /Mbt/