Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, J, MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, A
A. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the applicant's qualifications and promotion claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' arguments on promotion denial and communication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on delay and non-maintainability of the oa. (Para 10 , 11 , 18) |
| 4. final conclusion on the merit and dismissal of the oa. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)
The case of the applicant is that with his educational qualifications of M.Sc., M. Ed., M. Phil., (Physics), he was appointed as P.G. Teacher (Physics) on 05.01.1980 in Railway Mixed Higher Secondary School at Madurai and after completion of 12 years of dedicated service in teaching, he was granted Senior Grade in the year 1992. Though he had all the requisite qualifications and experience for appointment to Selection Grade and became eligible for Selection Grade appointment in the year 2004 itself, he was denied the same and he was retired from service on st 31.01.2010. Though he made many requests to the 1 respondent and gave representations dated 28.10.2009 and 21.09.2022, the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated 30/11/2022, has given reply stating that applicant was not considered for the Selection Grade due to a
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
