D.K.JAIN, H.L.DATTU
Shanker Raju – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J. —
1) Since the petitioner purports to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to note the relevant facts and reliefs sought for in the petition.
2) The material facts which are essential to mention are very few and they lie within a narrow compass. Shri Shanker Raju, the petitioner, was appointed as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”) on 10.12.2000. After completion of his five-year term, he was reappointed for another term of five years and was due to complete his second term of five years on 09.12.2010. In April, 2010, in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent regarding vacancies of Members in the Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, he made application for the post of Judicial Member of the Tribunal, the post which he had held for nine and a half years at the time of making application. Though the petitioner was eligible for the appointment in terms of his qualification, the respondent refused to consider his claim for appointment for the vacancy, for the reason that the petitioner would complete his second term of 5 years on 09.12.2010
Tiverton Estates Ltd. v. Wearwell Ltd
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Asstt. CST
Ganga Sugar Corpn. v. State of U.P.
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India
Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd
Nelson Motis v. Union of India
Hari Singh v. State of Haryana
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.