Anil Kumar, Haryana and Another Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh Through Home Secretary-cum-law Secretary, Chandigarh and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1150298
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided OnJan-10-2014
Case NumberO.A No. 1648/HR of 2013
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) & THE HONOURABLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
AppellantAnil Kumar, Haryana and Another
RespondentUnion Territory Chandigarh Through Home Secretary-cum-law Secretary, Chandigarh and Another
Excerpt:
(oral). sanjeev kaushik, member (j). 1. neither applicant nor his counsel has put in appearance despite two pass over. while proceeding under rule 15 of the cat (procedure) rules, 1987, learned counsel for the respondents has been heard and pleadings examined. 2. it is informed by sh. aseem rai learned counsel for the respondents that pursuance to the directions contained in the order dated 17.12.2013, the applicants were provisionally allowed to appear in the written examination held on 17.12.2013 at 3.00pm for the post of law officer. based upon the performance of the eligible persons, they were called for an interview which is scheduled to be held on 13.01.2014. he further submitted that the prayer in the instant o.a is only to allow the applicants to appear in the written examination, which has been done and therefore, the present o.a may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. he also stated that participation of the applicants in the examination would not confer upon them any right to the suitability which would be governed by the rules. 3. in view of the above and without going into the merits of the case, the present o.a is disposed of as infructuous.
Judgment:

(Oral).

Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J).

1. Neither applicant nor his counsel has put in appearance despite two pass over. While proceeding under Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, learned counsel for the respondents has been heard and pleadings examined.

2. It is informed by Sh. Aseem Rai learned counsel for the respondents that pursuance to the directions contained in the order dated 17.12.2013, the applicants were provisionally allowed to appear in the written examination held on 17.12.2013 at 3.00pm for the post of Law Officer. Based upon the performance of the eligible persons, they were called for an interview which is scheduled to be held on 13.01.2014. He further submitted that the prayer in the instant O.A is only to allow the applicants to appear in the written examination, which has been done and therefore, the present O.A may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. He also stated that participation of the applicants in the examination would not confer upon them any right to the suitability which would be governed by the rules.

3. In view of the above and without going into the merits of the case, the present O.A is disposed of as infructuous.