CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 18^th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Six CORAM :

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

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

N. Kathiravan, Store Keeper Grade – III, O/o The Inspector of Schools, Zone-1, Chief Educational Office, Karaikal. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. S. Srinivasan Vs.

l. Union of India, rep by its Director (JCA), Ministry of Personal & Training Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personal & Training Karmik Aur Prashikshan Vibhag)

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, New Delhi.

2. Union Territory of Puducherry Rep by its Under Secretary to Government DP & AR – Exam)

Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing)

Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

3. The Director, O/o The Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, GP, Govt. of Puducherry

ORAL ORDER

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

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

“Call for all relevant records to the impugned OM in NO.36034/27/84-Estt (SCT), dated 02.05.1985, st passed by the 1 respondent, OM in No.36034/6/90-Estt (SCT), dated 02.04.1992 st passed by the 1 respondent and consequential impugned order in No.34012/4/2015/DPAR nd (EXAM)/PF, dated 04.03.2016 passed by the 2 respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper illegal, against the rules and regulations of the respondents and thereby directing the respondents to select and appoint the applicant as UDC under the DP&AR (personnel Wing) with all consequential monetary service benefits including arrears of wages with effect from the date of the other persons are appointed within the time frame fixed by this Tribunal and pass such further or other order and this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18.02.1987 and was discharged from service on 01.07.2009. Pursuant to a Recruitment Notification dated 02.12.2011 for the post of Store Keeper Grade–III, he obtained an Ex-Servicemen certificate dated 02.08.2012 registering his name for re-employment under the Ex-Servicemen quota. By order dated

05.12.2013, he was selected and appointed as a Temporary Store Keeper Grade–III under the Ex-Servicemen quota and has continued in that cadre. Subsequently, a recruitment notification dated 11.08.2015 was issued for filling the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by direct recruitment. The Applicant submitted his application dated 14.08.2015 seeking appointment as UDC under the Ex-Servicemen quota. By order dated 05.11.2015, he was provisionally selected and directed to appear for certificate verification on 12.11.2015. However, upon verification of certificates and in view of the Office Memoranda (OMs) dated 02.05.1985 and 02.04.1992, his provisional selection under the Ex-Servicemen quota was cancelled by the impugned order dated 04.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant filed the present Original Application seeking redressal.

3. At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the respondents failed to properly appreciate the OM dated 02.05.1985. It was argued that the provision stating that an Ex- Serviceman’s status ceases upon availing the benefit once for Government employment is arbitrary. The Applicant had resigned from his earlier post and sought appointment through direct recruitment on a regular basis, and such re-employment, it was contended, should not bar him from claiming the benefit of the Ex-Servicemen quota again. It was further submitted that his participation in the UDC selection process was solely to improve his career prospects, and therefore the reliance placed on the OM dated 02.04.19