Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Pinki – Appellant
Versus
Director General, E.S.I. Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants ranked 10th and 19th in combined merit list for cook posts. (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. discretion to fix cut-offs does not justify retrospective application. (Para 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. retrospective qualifying marks fixation changes rules mid-process. (Para 8) |
| 4. post-participation criteria change lacks rational nexus. (Para 11) |
| 5. quash retrospective benchmark; appoint per merit list. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
(ORAL Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present OAs, with the consent of all parties the OAs were being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No. 2082/2024 (Pinki v. Employees State Insurance sHitpicupta Corporation (ESIC) & Ors.) SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.20
2. In the instant O.A. the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) To quash and set-side the impugned order dated 15.02.2024. (Annexure A/I).
(ii) Direct the respondent to appoint the applicant on the post of Post of Cook/Cook mate with all consequential benefits.
(iii) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.
(iv) To pass any other orders
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
