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

SooperKanoon Citation

sooperkanoon.com/1149140

Court	Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided On	May-26-2014
Case Number	OA No.853 of 2014 MA No.972 of 2014
Judge	The Honourable Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) &Amp; the Honourable Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (a)
Appellant	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.

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.