Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. According to the respondents, in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, they have taken necessary steps to implement the order including the aforesaid impugned orders were issued, calling the applicant to appear in the trade test for consideration of promotion to the post of Mistry (G). We have heard Shri B.S. Mainee, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri R.L. Dhawan, learned Counsel for the respondents at considerable length. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also produced the relevant records for our perusal and has submitted that there are no other records available with the Department which throws any light on the controversy raised in the present OA. After repeatedly asking the learned Counsel for the respondents to produce the records to show that the competent authority has either fixed/cancelled the trade test which was scheduled to be held on 16.7.1992, the respondents have failed to do so. Learned Counsel has also expressed his inability to show such a document because he says none exists in the relevant file.

5. On the other hand, Shri B.S. Mainee, learned Counsel has submitted that the above facts arc not correct in order to arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter, namely, whether the trade test scheduled was later kept pending or cancelled. We had directed the respondents to produce the relevant records, which they have done. These records have also been shown to Shri B.S. Mainee, learned Counsel.

6. Shri R.L. Dhawan, learned Counsel has laid great emphasis on "a letter dated 9.10,1992 written by Shri Arun Kumar, Workshop Asstt. Elect. Engineer, Northern Railway, Dayabasti, Delhi, to one Shri Shaukat Aziz Mattoo, Presenting Officer in respect of aforesaid OA 2371/1992 in the Tribunal. He has referred to page 3 of this letter: