Pradeep P a Vs. Union of India Represented by the Director General, New Delhi and Others

Pradeep P a vs Union of India Represented by the Director General, New Delhi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam Decided Jun 23, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/938835

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/938835
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice: George Paracken, Judicial Member &Amp; the Honourable Ms. K Noorjehan, Administrative Member
Decided On: Jun 23, 2009
Case Number: Original Application No:420 of 2009
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep P a

Advocate For the Applicant : P. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : TPM Ibrahim Khan SCGSC.

Respondent

Union of India Represented by the Director General, New Delhi and Others

Advocate Mr. TPM Ibrahim Khan

Excerpt

mr. george paracken, judicial member the applicant belongs to scheduled caste community. he was engaged as a gramin dak sevak mail carrier,( hereinafter gds mc for short) at kannamaly post office, kochi w.e.f. 2.3.2006 on temporary basis as a substitute as submitted by the applicant. while he was working in said capacity, the 4th respondent issued the annexure a-3 notification dated 19.2.2009 inviting applications for the post of gds mc at kannamaly post office on regular/provisional(temporary) appointment. according to the applicant, he has also applied for the post. however, the respondents have not called him for interview which is going to be held on 24.6.2009. the request of the applicant is that he should also be allowed to be interviewed alongwith other persons. 2. we have heard advocate mr p santhosh kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and advocate ms asha for mr tpm ibrahim khan, learned counsel for respondents. in our considered view, since the applicant has been working as a gds mc on substitute basis and he fulfills the qualification, he should be considered alongwith others for appointment to the aforesaid post on regular basis. however, it is made clear that this order will not indicate any preferential treatment to the applicant. 3. with the aforesaid direction, the oa is disposed of. there shall be no orders as to costs.

Full Judgment

Mr. George Paracken, Judicial Member

The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He was engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier,( hereinafter GDS MC for short) at Kannamaly Post Office, Kochi w.e.f. 2.3.2006 on temporary basis as a substitute as submitted by the applicant. While he was working in said capacity, the 4th respondent issued the Annexure A-3 notification dated 19.2.2009 inviting applications for the post of GDS MC at Kannamaly Post Office on regular/provisional(temporary) appointment. According to the applicant, he has also applied for the post. However, the respondents have not called him for interview which is going to be held on 24.6.2009. The request of the applicant is that he should also be allowed to be

interviewed alongwith other persons.

2. We have heard Advocate Mr P Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Advocate Ms Asha for Mr TPM Ibrahim Khan, learned counsel for respondents. In our considered view, since the applicant has been working as a GDS MC on substitute basis and he fulfills the qualification, he should be considered alongwith others for appointment to the aforesaid post on regular basis. However, it is made

clear that this order will not indicate any preferential treatment to the applicant.

3. With the aforesaid direction, the OA is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam · 2009 Same Parties Pradeep P a vs Union of India Represented by the Director Gen... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Mr. Justice: George Paracken, Judicial Member ...