Abdul Kayyum vs Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur And Ors

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner on irrelevant considerations.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 to 4 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the original application filed by the petitioner was in-fact, not maintainable. Petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of sixty years. As per Annexure- 19 attached to the writ petition, date of birth of the petitioner was 15.03.1949. Son of the petitioner had participated in the selection process and, therefore, he could not challenge the same on account of the fact that he had failed the test. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom & Others, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4582, wherein it was held as under:

"11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised."

Petitioner had sought the following relief by filing original application:

"8. RELIEFS SOUGHT:-

In view of the facts and grounds mentioned in para 4 and 5, above the applicants prays for the following relief:-

(i) That the entire record relating to the case be called for and after perusing the same the respondents be directed to extend benefits of the scheme at Annexure-A/4 by allowing appointment to the son of the applicant Shri Abdul Saleem by quashing letter dated 30/11/2009 (Annexure-A/1) declaring assessment of the ward as null and void, as committee constitute against instructions at Annexure-A/14 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the respondents be further directed to allow second chance for consideration as per Board letter dated 25/07/2006 (Annexure-A/20) and as per procedure provided in the scheme at Annexure-A/4 i.e. assessment through respective Railway Recruitment Board not by committee of three SAG Officers by quashing letter dated 03/05/2010 (Annexure-A/3) with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) That the costs of this application may be awarded."

Learned Tribunal had rightly held that once the son of the petitioner had taken the examination and had failed to clear the same, the petitioner could not challenge the selection process and allege that the Committee constituted by the respondents was against the instructions mentioned in Annexure-A/14 attached with the original application.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.