Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

        iii)     Deem fit and proper.

        iv)      Allow the original application with costs of litigation

                 in favour of the applicant.

2. The brief facts of the case are enumerated as follows:-

The applicant is a former Armed Forced person who applied for the Centralized advertisement of employment Notice No. 03/2012 dated 6.2.20212 of Graduate Category/ N.T.P.C. posts under category of ex-serviceman.

3. Admit Card was issued to the applicant for appearing in interview. It appears that applicant wanted the post of Commercial Apprentice/Inspector while the Railway had offered him the post of Traffic Apprentice. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant moved various applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking various kinds of information. Some of those information were admittedly provided to him. However, the applicant was not satisfied and filed the present Original Application (O.A.) before this Tribunal on 8.9.2016. Registry found this O.A. barred by time. This report was considered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal on 5.10.2016. Counsel for applicant offered to file delay condonation application. He was permitted to do so by the Tribunal. Therefore, in pursuance of the proceedings/permission dated 5.10.2016, the present delay condonatino application has been filed by the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that applicant had applied for the post of Commercial Inspector/Apprentice under reserved vacancy for ex- serviceman. Therefore, his appointment as Traffic Inspector/Apprentice (Operation) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. On the other hand, Ms. Shruti Malviya, counsel for respondents has argued that advertisement was issued for centralized recruitment and that no option was given for candidates for particular position. She has further argued that applicant being devoid of choice, cannot claim a particular post. She further argued that recruitment result was declared on 20.5.2015. Prior orders indicated by applicant are in fact nothing but merely offers for recruitment and they do not give any vested right to the applicant on a particular post or appointment.

"List has been revised. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Saurabh holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma is present for respondents.
Petitioner is seeking quashing of the orders dated 4.8.2014, 13.11.2014, 13.1.2015 and 11.2.2015 and is also seeking a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter for his joining on the post of Commercial Inspector/Apprentice in the category of Ex- service Man instead of Traffic Inspector (Operating). This is a service matter relating to the Railways. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261.