Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A), M. SWAMINATHAN, J
S. Vengadesan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants seek quashing of seniority list and fresh preparation per 3:1 ratio. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. 3:1 quota mandatory; excess police constable appointments ad-hoc; seniority from driver appointment date. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondents claim compliance with central govt seniority rules and high court directions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. recruitment rules' 3:1 ratio violated; central rules inapplicable; excess appointments invalid. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. quash list; direct fresh 3:1 seniority with consequential benefits. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member )
This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:
“(i) Quash the Final Seniority List of Driver (PD) Gr.III issued by the Respondent 5, in Memorandum No.407/Pol/Estt-I(A)/A3/2015 dated 18.08.2015;
(ii) Direct the Respondents 4 & 5 to prepare afresh the Seniority List of Driver (PD) Gr.III by-
a) interspersing the Police Constable and Home Guards who were appointed to the post of Driver (PD) Gr.III, in the ratio of 3:1; and
b) taking into account their actual date of appointment in the post of Driver (PD) Gr.III;
c) to give all consequential bene
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
