CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 28^th day of November, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

M. Thangarasu, S/o Murugan, No.15, Pillair Koil Street, Gandhi Thirunallur, Muthiyar Palayam Puducherry .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. Dakshayani Reddy Vs.

1. Government of Puducherry Commercial Taxes Department, Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Puducherry

2. A. Anandan, Presently holding the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department Puducherry .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa for R.1 Mr. V. Vijaya Shankar for R2

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

st “call for the records of the 1 respondent so far as the nd appointment of the 2 respondent to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer as informed to the st petitioner vide the information furnished by the 1 respondent herein vide letter dated 01.02.2016 and st quash the same and consequently direct the 1 respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer pursuant to the st direct recruitment conducted by the 1 respondent during the year 2014 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case and thus render justice”

2. Factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The first respondent issued Notification dated 17.02.2014, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. As per the said notification, 8 posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer were advertised. The prescribed educational qualifications were: a Degree in Law, or a Master’s Degree in Commerce, Economics, or Corporate Secretaryship, or qualification as a Chartered Accountant. Of the 8 posts, 5 were unreserved, 1 was reserved for MBC, 1 for OBC, and 1 for Scheduled Caste, in addition to one horizontally reserved for Ex- servicemen. The applicant is fully qualified for the post, holding a Master’s Degree in Economics and belonging to the Most Backward Class category. Accordingly, the applicant applied under the said notification and was eligible for consideration under both the unreserved and MBC categories. The applicant received a hall ticket and duly appeared for the written examination conducted on 22.06.2014. It is submitted that the scheme of selection comprised only a written examination. The applicant performed well and awaited publication of the merit list. In July 2014, the merit list was published, wherein the applicant was placed at Rank No. 14. Consequently, the applicant assumed that he was not selected, as only 8 posts were available and he fell outside the zone of consideration. However, in January 2016, the applicant came to know that an individual whose name did not appear in the published merit list had been appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer pursuant to the same 2014 notification. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation under the Right to Information Act in January 2016, seeking details regarding the selected candidates. Pursuant to this request, the respondent furnished information vide letter dated 01.02.2016. The information disclosed that individuals ranked 1 to 8 had initially been selected. It was further clarified that two of the original selectees, Rank No. 5, Ms. Kanchana Rattinam (Unreserved), and Rank No. 8, Gomathy Sankarara Narayanan (Unreserved – Ex-serviceman)had resigned shortly after appointment. It was also stated that, in their place, two individuals, namely Dharmarajan and the second respondent, A. Anandan, were appointed under the unreserved category. The first respondent confirmed that these individuals were serving as Assistant Commercial Tax Officers as on 27.01.2016. The applicant is aggrieved by the appointment of the second respondent under the unreserved category, as the second respondent