Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16.2.2. In the light of the above legal precedents, the order passed by the CAT does not call for any interference and accordingly, this writ petition will stand dismissed.
16.3. W.P. No. 26407 of 2001 (K. Bhojamani v. UOI) and W.P. No. 32314 of 2002 (UOI v. K.Bhojamani):
16.3.1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 490 of 2001. The petitioner was a Graduate and he was appointed as an Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster [for short, 'EDBPM']. While the petitioner had secured 251/500 marks in S.S.L.C., there was another candidate by name, Thavamani, who had secured 350/500 marks. The superior authorities found that there were 17 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and 28 names were kept in the dovetailed list. Without considering the merits of those candidates, the petitioner's appointment was made and he was given a show cause notice for cancelling his appointment. The CAT, by an order dated 11.12.2001, found that the appointment of the petitioner Bhojamani was irregular on the ground that at the time of appointment, the petitioner did not have the income criteria and it cannot be post selection criteria and upheld his termination as confirmed by the superior authority by order dated 12.4.2000. In the same order, the CAT directed fresh selection to go on but confined the selection only to the original candidates called for certificate verification.
16.9.2. It must also be stated that there cannot be review of an order after three years and the order passed by the CAT is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar's case (cited supra). In the light of the same, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CAT and hence, this writ petition will stand dismissed.
16.10. W.P. No. 6758 of 2003 (V. Dhanasekaran v. UOI):
16.10.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the CAT dated 17.7.2002 made in O.A. No. 1233 of 2001. The petitioner was appointed as an EDDA / MC in March 1999. In the selection, there were 12 candidates including the petitioner. For no reason, the petitioner was asked to hand over the charge. He filed O.A. No. 789 of 2000 and the CAT directed the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry. When an order was passed without reasons, once again, O.A. No. 378 of 2001 was filed and the CAT directed the respondents to assign reasons. It was found that the post was not reserved for SC candidate and it was an OC vacancy. While the petitioner had secured 266/500, one other applicant by name, G. Veerabadran had obtained 358/500. Therefore, the selection was irregular. Though it was argued that there is no power of review, the CAT held that selecting the petitioner as if it was SC vacancy was wrong. Hence, the O.A. was dismissed on 17.7.2002 holding that there was nothing wrong in the Department calling for fresh nominations. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
16.10.2. It must also be stated that there cannot be a review of an order after three years and the order passed by the CAT is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar's case (cited supra). In the light of the same, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CAT and hence, this writ petition will stand dismissed.
16.11. W.P. No. 17991 of 2003 (UOI v. M. V. Nakkeeran):
16.11.1. The Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the order of the CAT dated 22.11.2002 made in O.A. No. 424 of 2002. The first respondent challenged his termination order before the CAT stating that since he had the highest marks among the applicants, he should be selected and that no economic criteria should be followed. The CAT allowed the O.A. after following the judgment of the Kerala High Court in 2002 (1) K.L.T. 554 (cited supra). This view of the CAT is completely erroneous in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Singh (cited supra).
16.12.2. The stand taken by the CAT is in consonance with the reasoning rendered by the Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar's case (cited supra). In the light of the same, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CAT and hence, this writ petition will stand dismissed.
16.13. W.P. No. 996 of 2004 (UOI v. V. Gajendran):
16.13.1. The Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the order of the CAT dated 22.11.2001 made in O.A. No. 206 of 2001. The first respondent was appointed as an EDBPM on a temporary basis from 20.7.1999. He was regularly appointed in the said post w.e.f. 04.11.1999. In the guise of reviewing his appointment, a show cause notice dated 27.11.2000 was issued to him. Subsequently, by an order dated 08.01.2001, his services were terminated. The CAT, following the Full Bench of the CAT, held that there was no power of review and allowed the O.A and directed the restoration of service of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India has filed the present writ petition.