Sunil Kumar, Baghpat (Up). Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, New Delhi and Another

Sunil Kumar, Baghpat (Up). vs Union of India Through the General Manager, New Delhi and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi Decided May 26, 2014

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1149140

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1149140
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Judge: The Honourable Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) &Amp; the Honourable Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (a)
Decided On: May 26, 2014
Case Number: OA No.853 of 2014 MA No.972 of 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar, Baghpat (Up).

Respondent

Union of India Through the General Manager, New Delhi and Another

Excerpt

(oral). g. george paracken, member (j). 1. the applicant has filed this original application against the rejection of his candidature by respondent no.2 for appointment to group d post in railways in terms of the employment notification no.220-e/open market/2012 dated 30.12.2012, without passing any order or without assigning any reason. 2. the respondents have filed their reply opposing this original application. 3. today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has produced the original omr sheet of the applicant in which he has left the centre code and the control number unmarked. he has submitted that without the aforesaid information, the computer could not accept the applicants data and, therefore, his case could not be processed further. he has also shown the original omr sheet to the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. in view of the above position, we do not find any merit in this case and it s dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

(Oral).

G. George Paracken, Member (J).

1. The applicant has filed this Original Application against the rejection of his candidature by respondent No.2 for appointment to Group D post in Railways in terms of the Employment Notification No.220-E/Open Market/2012 dated 30.12.2012, without passing any order or without assigning any reason.

2. The respondents have filed their reply opposing this Original Application.

3. Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced the original OMR sheet of the Applicant in which he has left the Centre Code and the Control Number unmarked. He has submitted that without the aforesaid information, the computer could not accept the applicants data and, therefore, his case could not be processed further. He has also shown the original OMR sheet to the learned counsel for the Applicant.

4. In view of the above position, we do not find any merit in this case and it s dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi · ... Same Parties Sunil Kumar, Baghpat (Up). vs Union of India Through the Gene... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) &Amp; the H...