Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs Union Of India

Madhya Pradesh High Court

WRIT PETITION, 5690 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jun 26, 2015

WP-5690-2015
(PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA)
26-06-2015
Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondents.
The petitioner was a candidate who participated in the
process of selection for appointment on the post of
Durwan. The petitioner wanted appointment under the
category of OBC Ex-serviceman. After the process of
selection was conducted, one Shri Kuldeep Yadav was
selected under this category. However, it is seen that
when Shri Kuldeep Yadav did not join, the petitioner was
entitled to be appointed, the petitioner claims for
appointment on the said post, but, nothing has been
done.
The petitioner approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur and initially the Tribunal directed the
respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was
considered and the management of Ordinance Factory
Board informed the petitioner that as per the circulars
and instructions for filling up post which remained
unfilled, in such eventuality, the candidate in the reserve
list has to be appointed and in the reserved list, there is
no name of the petitioner, therefore, his claim was
rejected. The Tribunal approved the aforesaid rejection.
While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, observations
made by the department was reproduced by the Tribunal
in para-5 and only reason given for rejection is that the
petitioner's name is not reflected in the reserved list,
therefore, he cannot claim for appointment. No material
produced before us to show that the petitioner's name
was reflected in the reserved list, therefore, he cannot be
appointed. On the contrary, it is the claim of the
petitioner that he sought reserved list under Right to
Information Act which has not been granted to him and
on appeal being filed under Right to Information Act, the
matter has been remanded back to the Information
Officer. It is clear position for the present that in absence
of any material to show that the petitioner's name has
been been shown in the reserved list, no indulgence can
be made by this Court. As and when the petitioner able
to prove that his name is reflected in the reserved list
and in spite of that he has not been appointed, cause of
action accrues to the petitioner for claiming his
appointment. For the present, we find no error in the
order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE                                 (VANDANA KASREKAR)
                                                   JUDGE