Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ritu Ranjan Singh vs Union Of India on 16 February, 2010

                      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 BENCH AT JABALPUR




DIVISION BENCH :
                           HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA &
                           HON. SHRI JUSTICE R.S.JHA.




                              WRIT PETITION 4628/2009



........Petitioner                          Ritu Ranjan Singh son of Shri Ghugali
                                            Prasad, C/o Waresh Kumar Roy, near
                                            Bishary Ashthan, Ishak Chak, Bangalpur
                                            Bihar, at present Jabalpur H.No. 512,
                                            Shyam      Apartment,     Beoharbagh,
                                            Jabalpur (M.P.)

                                            Versus

........Respondents                          1. Union of India, through the
                                                Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New
                                                Delhi.

                                             2. The Railway Bharti Board, Bhopal,
                                                through its President, East Railway
                                                Colony, Bhopal, M.P. 462010.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sheel Nagu, Advocate for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         ORDER

(16-02-2010) The order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT'), Jabalpur Bench, at Jabalpur, in Original Application No. 246/2008 dated 6-2-2009 whereby the original application of the petitioner has been dismissed and also the order dated 31-3-2009 passed by the CAT dismissing the review application of the petitioner, have been challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The writ petitioner against the advertisement dated 6-12-2006 issued by respondent No. 2 for the recruitment on the post mentioned at serial No. 21 to 24 in the said advertisement i.e. Technician-III (Electric Fitter, Electrician, Electrical and Crane Driver) in the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- appeared in the written examination on 28-10-2007 in which he succeeded and thereafter he received a letter filed as Annexure A-3 before the CAT, for personal appearance to verify the documents. The petitioner submitted that he possessed mark sheet of Electrical Trade issued by the office of State Apprenticeship Adviser, on 28-12-2006 in which his father's name has been wrongly mentioned, therefore, he got the name of his father corrected and submitted another mark sheet which was issued on 27-12-2007 and was placed on record before the learned Tribunal as Annexures A-4 and A-5 respectively. The Principal of the institution also issued a certificate which was placed on record as Annexure A-6 before the Tribunal mentioning the training period undergone by the petitioner.

3. The respondents issued the order impugned Annexure P-1 dated 29-2-2008 stating that since the petitioner did not possess the prescribed certificate on the date fixed for submission of the application form as mentioned in the employment notice, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any appointment. This made a cause to the petitioner to file the original application before the CAT.

4. The respondents by filing the return refuted the submissions made in the original application and took the same stand which has been mentioned in Annexure P-1, dated 29-2-2008. The learned Tribunal, after going through the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents placed on record came to hold that since within the period of cut off date, viz. 15-1-2007 the requisite certificates were not submitted by the writ petitioner, he is not entitled to any relief and eventually dismissed the original application.

5. The petitioner by filing a document Annexure P-9 which is a certificate issued by National Council for Vocational Training, submitted a review application before the learned Tribunal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 31-3-2009.

6. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the above said two orders of the Tribunal.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner did not file the requisite certificates issued by S.C.V.T. or N.C.V.T. on the cut off date, viz. 15-1-2007, therefore, according to us, learned Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the original application as well as the review application. Merely because after the cut off date as the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by the N.C.V.T. on 20th February, 2008, would not confer in him any right to be recruited on the post for which he has applied for. We have also gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal dismissing the original application and the review application and we do not find any perversity, illegality or any material irregularity in the impugned orders.

9. The petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

               (A.K.Shrivastava)                              (R.S.Jha)
                    Judge                                       Judge




mct