Allowed

Union of India, v. B.Baloji

Telangana HC24 Apr 2014WP/17264/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed the Government's Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order which allowed an appointment for a Scheduled Tribe post not included in the original notification. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to re-notify the vacancies for the Scheduled Tribe category immediately.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; petitioner directed to re-notify posts for Scheduled Tribe category immediately.

Union of India, Vs B.Baloji — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.17264 OF 2013

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 02.04.2013, in O.A.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad.

¶6

2. Respondent No.1 herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to Factory Order Part-I No.148, dated 9.8.2011, and Factory Order Part-II No.243, dated 27.7.2012, of petitioner No.3 herein and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary; to set aside Unreserved vacancy notified in Order 1(i) 9 of Charge man/Tech(Mechanical) and appointment of last Unreserved candidate in Order 1(2) of Charge man/Tech.(Mech.) i.e., respondent No.2 herein and to consequently, direct the petitioners herein to consider the case of applicant for appointment as Charge man/Tech.(Mech.) based on merit in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (L.D.C.E.)-2011 on par with other selected candidates with effect from 18.7.2012 with all consequential benefits.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application directing the petitioners herein that the applicant shall be shown to have been selected as last candidate in 2011 selected candidates, and as and when vacancy of Charge man/Tech., (Mech.) arises, he shall be given posting with bottom seniority amongst 2011 selected candidates and that he shall be entitled for emoluments in the promoted post from the date he joins. Challenging the same, Government filed the present Writ Petition.

¶8

4. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant.

¶9

5. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner No.3/Ordnance Factory, Yeddumailaram, Medak District issued a Notification for filling up of vacancies of Charge man (Tech. & Non-Tech.) through L.D.C.E. Against the said notification, respondent No.1/applicant applied for selection to the post of Charge man/Tech.(Mech.,). The total number of vacancies was notified as 11 out of which two posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste and 9 posts for Unreserved. It is not in dispute before this Court that for the post of Chargeman/T(Mech.,), there is a vacancy for Scheduled Tribe Category. It is also admitted by the petitioners herein that by mistake, it was not notified. Though respondent No.1/applicant secured the required marks for selection, he cannot be selected for the post, which is not notified. The Tribunal gave a perverse finding to select him to the post, which is not notified. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.

¶10

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the petitioners herein to re-notify the posts of Chargeman/T(Mech.,) for Scheduled Tribe Category immediately, as non-notifying the said post for Scheduled Tribe Category in the earlier notification was due to error committed by them. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________

¶13

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 24.4.2014 AMD

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.17264 OF 2013

¶16

DATE: 24.4.2014

¶17

AMD

Union of India, v. B.Baloji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. B.Baloji

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

Similar cases

D.Raju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Eswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its

S. Eswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Commissioner, Vs Smt. M. Jyothi Nirmala

Prasanth Kumar Pandey, Vs Union of India

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Shaik Noorulla