Disposed

G S Gangadharappa v. the Union of India Others

CAT1 Jul 2014O.A./989/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The CAT Bengaluru Bench found malafide in the selection process due to evaluator irregularities. The Court ordered a review of selected candidates and remitted the matter to pass a speaking order within two months regarding the applicant's ACR eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Original application allowed to limited extent; review of selected candidates ordered; remitted to respondents to pass speaking order within two months regarding ACR marks.

G S Gangadharappa vs the Union of India Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2014)

¶1

I 1 I

¶2

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

¶3

BANGALORE BENCH

¶4

ORIGINAL ARPLICATION NO.989/2012

¶5

DATED THIS THE ;Q1ST..DAY OF JULY. 2014

¶6

HON'BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J)

¶7

HON'BLE SHrI P.K.PRADHAN, MEMBER (A)

¶8

G.S.Gangadharappa,

¶9

Son of Shri Sanjeevappa, Aged about 43 years, Working as Junior Engineer Gradefll, Raii Wheel Factory, i Ministry of Rjailways, ' Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560 064. '

¶10

(By Shri Izzhar Ahmed, Advocate)

¶11

I Vs.

¶12

1.The Member (staff). Railway Bpard, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan,

¶13

....Applicant

¶14

New Delhi - 110 001.

¶15

2.The Union, of india. Through the General Manager, Rail Wheel Factory, Ministry of Railways, Yelahanka,

¶16

Bangalore - 560 064.

¶17

3.The Chief Personnel Officer, Rail Wheel Factory, Ministry of Railways, Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560 064.

¶18

¶19

4.The Chief Mechanical Engineer, ' Rail Wheel Factory, Ministry of Railways, Yelahanka^ I Bangalore - 560 064. i j 5.The Chief Workshop Engineer, J (Wheel Shop), j Rail Wheel Factory, Ministry of Railways, Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560 064. | 6.Shri K.Mohan Kumar, 1 Working as Assistant Works Manager, Rail Wheel Factory, j Ministry of Railways, Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560 064. j Respondents

¶20

(By Shri N./^maresh, Advocate for Respondents 1- 5 Shri B.Veerabhadra, Advocate for R-6.)

¶21

; ORDER

¶22

DR.K.B.SURESH. MEMBER fIV

¶23

Consequent to jthe additional document made available to the Railway I

¶24

Board in Annexure -R7 some of the documents were also produced which indicate that there had been some issues and serioLis irregularity were committed by evaluator Shri Uma Shankar. After having examined by the vigilance authorities including the Central Vigilance Commission as Shri Uma Shankar Had by then retired, it was found that sufficient malafide I do not exist for severe relook to be made in this issue. It has been found that wrong answers f I been given full marks, insufficient answers were given more marks. There was cancellation and overwriting by evaluator. But this was not been done in the case of the applicant as if it

¶25

¶26

can be taken as parity in human error itj must be available in applicant's case also whereas I such has been there in the case of selected candidates only. Therefore, the question Is not whether sufficient malafide exist for punishing the evaluator but then were infraction was there ^'ufficient to deprive the rightful position or not?. Therefore the position obtained i by the selected candidates would be subjected to a review along with the applicant. They shall also be informed that after a finding of the CVC the selection of the Respondent No.-6 has become clouded and suspicious .

¶27

Relating to the qliestion of ACRs brought out by the vigilance team the I applicant had alleged that while getting the GM awards in 2005-2006 he claims that he is [ eligible for 5 marks as per the DPC minutes. If these are made available to him he will naturally cross'over the minimum 15 rriarks especially in view of the marks he had obtained in the written examination. Therefore |matter is remitted back to the respondents. Within 2 months and after hearing both the parties a speaking order be passed within the limited time.

¶28

O.A is allowed to this limited extent. No costs.

¶29

(P.K.PRADHAN) (DR.K.B.SURESH) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

¶30

G S Gangadharappa v. the Union of India Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G S Gangadharappa v. the Union of India Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri C Puttaswamy Others vs Union of India and Others

Shri Mylarashetty vs the Union of India Others

Smt Purnima Saikia vs Ddk

MD Aftab Ali vs M/O Defence

Sri M Joy Singh vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions

Bharati Rai vs M/O Home Affairs

Rajashekar Auradkar vs the Commandant Managing Director

M Srinivasa vs the Commandant Managing Director