Sh. Pritipal Singh Vs.

[dr. mukundakam sharma; anil r. dave, jj.] - it was the case of the appellant that certain candidates belonging to backward class `a' category had been given appointment against the posts of general category and had it not been done so, the appellant would have got the appointment. after hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of record, the high court rejected the petition by the judgment dated 18th july, 2003. factually, the court found that no candidate of general class, who had secured less marks than the appellant, was appointed as an art and craft teacher and, therefore, the petition had been rejected. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a similar grievance before this court. moreover, the learned counsel submitted that there was one vacancy as shri kartar singh, who had been appointed as an art and craft teacher had submitted his resignation and, therefore, on the vacancy which had arisen on account of resignation of shri kartar singh, the appellant should have been appointed as an art and craft teacher. upon perusal of the record, we find that the appellant had secured 62 marks whereas the last candidate of the general category who was selected had secured 71 marks. the waiting list lapsed on 27th april, 2000 and, therefore, the said list could not have been operated after 27th april, 2000. .....of 1990 for his re-engagement though the petitioner also referred to a circular of 11th march, 1999, however, no such circular had been produced by the petitioner nor had been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the petitioner sought re-engagement in 2000 and when the respondents did not provide re-engagement in 2000 filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal. considering the facts and circumstances, the tribunal held that the cause of action of the petitioner for re-engagement had arisen in 1985 or in 1990 and an original application could not be filed by the petitioner in 2000. it was held that the application of the petitioner would be barred under section 21 of the administrative tribunal act, 1985.4. the tribunal also held that on merits, the seniority list on which the reliance was placed was issued for kanoongo clerk, which on inquiry had been found to be not authentic and as such the same could not be been taken cognizance of and the petitioner was not entitled for re-engagement and the petition had been dismissed. today no one is present on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing. the previous orders also reveals that the petitioner had not appeared on 2nd april, 2008. the learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that by the impugned order dated 23rd october, 2002, another similar application being oa 2865/2001 titled as sh. anil kumar v. uoi & ors. was also dismissed against which order, a writ petition was filed by another petitioner sh. anil kumar being wp(c) no. 2620/2003, which was also dismissed by this court by a detailed order dated 25th october, 2005.5. in the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in default. pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.