CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Ankur Nishant vs Anil Kumar Singh And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 16 July 2018 · Citation: (2018) 07 CAT CK 0089

HON’BLE JUDGES
Praveen Mahajan, Member (A) · S.N. Terdal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 830 Of 2017, Original Application No. 4057 Of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 344 words

Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

1.

Heard the leaned counsels for both sides.

2.

Mr. Anuj Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the Bench to result notice No. 250 dated 18.05.2018. The applicant figures at Sl No.1 Roll No. 13839509 in the SC category.

3.

He made a statement at the bar that the appointment letter will be issued to the applicant positively within next 15 days. He stated that in view of the substantial compliance of the order, the CP may be closed.

4.

This  is vehemently  opposed by the learned counsel for the applicant who states that the applicant's candidature has already been delayed and his colleagues have already got their appointment in December, 2017.

5.

However, we find that in the order dated 22.11.2017 of the Tribunal passed in OA No. 4057/2017 it was directed that "accordingly, we direct the applicant to give a fresh application attaching all the certificates and also stating the marks obtained by him through the RTI Act within two days from today. The 3 OA-4057/2017 respondents are directed to consider the application of the applicant by taking into consideration his Education Qualification, Approval Certificate and the marks acquired by him which are higher than the last selected SC candidate within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the fresh application of the applicant along with certified copy of this order. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to page 52 of the paper book wherein it is seen that the applicant on the basis of this very qualification has already been shortlisted by SSC. The respondents are directed to take this into consideration as well. Till the decision is not taken by the respondents, one post shall be kept vacant."

6.

Hence substantial compliance of the order has already been made. Thus, the Contempt Petition is closed and notices issued to the respondents are discharged. However, the applicant is at liberty to challenge the said order as per law in case any grievance still remains.