CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Gaurav And Others vs Staff Selection Commission And Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 10 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 CAT CK 0013

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 955 Of 2020
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 371 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued an Advertisement on 05.09.2018 for selection/appointment to 12 posts of Section Officers (SO) (Horticulture), in Central Public Works Department (CPWD). A written test was conducted for that purpose. Thereafter, the respondents issued a rejection list of 106 candidates on 01.08.2019, indicating various reasons. One of the rejected candidates filed OA No. 3429/2019 challenging the decision. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 06.12.2019, directing that the respondents can proceed with the selection for the post of SO, and against last successful candidate, it shall be mentioned that his selection will be subject to the outcome of the OA No. 3429/2019. The applicant claims to be one of the successful candidates. His grievance is that though this Tribunal permitted the respondents to go ahead with the selection, they are not proceeding further, and thereby enormous difficulty and hardship is caused to him. He sought relief in the form of a direction to the respondents to declare the result.

2.

We heard Sh. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sh. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.

The selection process for the post of SO began with the publication of advertisement on 05.09.2018. The test was conducted and the respondents seem to be ready with the results. Before declaring the general results, they published a list of 106 candidates who are disqualified. OA No. 3429/2019 was filed by one of such candidates, but this Tribunal declined stay of the selections. On the other hand, it was made specific that the respondents can proceed with the selection.

4.

Sh. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the non declaration of the result of the other candidates, including that of the applicant is on account of the pendency of OA No. 3429/2019.That hardly constitutes any valid ground, particularly when this Tribunal made it clear that the selections can go on.

5.

We, therefore dispose of the OA with a direction to the respondents to declare the results of the examination held for selection to the post of SO, within two weeks from today and to proceed into the selection. There shall be no order as to costs.