Mangla Singhi v. Union of India

1. P<-escnt petition has been filed by petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to set aside and quash the Order dated 25.2.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinaltcr referred to as "the TrilninaP') in I^A No.28/2015, which was dismissed being barred by limitation, and the Order dated 21.11.2014 passed by Tribunal in O.A.No.2479/2014, which was dismissed as infructuous.

2. Brief facts of ihis case, according to the petitioner herein, are that the petitioner joined the Directorate of Tiducation, Government of NCT of Delhi as a frained (jraduate Teacher ('T(}T) Hindi. He was promoted lo the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PG'T) Tlindi and is presently posted at 2015:DHC:11541-DB Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Khajoori Khas, Delhi. On 13.2.2010, the respondent IJPSC advertised 58 posts of Piincipal for which a written test was conductcd on 29.4.2012 in which the petitioner herein appeared. Ihe result of the said examination was declared on 29.7.2013. UPSC adopted shortlisting criteria and declared the result lor interview provisionally, however, the petitioner was not shortlisted for interview, as according to the UPSC, he was not iound successful in the Recruitment Test even on relaxed standards. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. 2479/2014 for permitting him to appear in the interview. The Tribunal vide Order dated 24.7.2014 permitted the petitioner to appear provisionally in the interview subject to the condition that his result would be kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner was called for interview provisionally. Final result was declared by UPSC on 7.11.2014 without counting the marks of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed M.A. 3604/2014 seeking stay of posfing for the post of Principal in the Directorate of Education, but the said application was dismissed on 21.11.2014 as it was informed to the Tribunal by counsel for Llie respondents that the petitioner herein had not succeeded in the written examination. The order dated 21.11.2014 reads as under: "'This MA No.3604/2014 was taken on the prayerfor interim stay because Sh.J.B. Mudgil, counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the applicant had not succeeded in the written examination and by virtue of interim order of the Tribunal, he hadappearedfor the interview. It was therefore, submitted that since the applicant had not succeeded in the written examination, question ofhis being interviewed would not arise. We agree with the afore-noted submissions ofthe counselfor the respondents. s. circumstances.,he OA has tecome Hn'Ouons and is, therefore, dismissed. ma No.3604/2014 no longer survives. u n A for counting the nnarks of thereafter filed Review Application, wtiieh was dismisse Candidate and wliile passing tiie impugned or er ae NO-8P015 in'o.A.No.2479/2015, the learned Tribunal has ai e^o Tpltethe factthatfivetimesofcandidateswerecalledforinterview in OtherBackwardClasses (OBC) category by the UPSC. butthis entena was not followed by the UPSC with regard to Scheduled C ass ) category candidates. T he petitioner further submits that the mbunal has n.erely dismissed theO.A. onthe groundthathe has not succeeded inthe written test, but his grievance has not been addressed.

5. Reading of the order dated 25.2.2015 would show that the aforesaid ground raised bythe petitionerhas not been adjudicated upon.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 25.2.2015 passedby Tribunal is recalled and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing on the O.A.. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10.8.2015.

7. Petition stands disposed of in view of above. G.S.SISTANV, J I./ SANGITA l^l^G^SEHGAL, J AUGUST 03, 2015msr