Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Judicial Member, VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Administrative Member
PENUGONDA RAVITEJA – Appellant
Versus
UOI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lists applicants in oa 672/2023 (Para 1) |
| 2. relief sought against impugned order (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. applicants' application and selection process (Para 4) |
| 4. applicants challenge rejection under policy (Para 5) |
| 5. respondents' recruitment process and rejection (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. respondents defend eligibility criteria enforcement (Para 8) |
| 7. dgt explains aitt scheduling and certification (Para 9) |
| 8. applicants' rejoinder and similar cases (Para 10 , 11) |
| 9. railway board policy on ccaa eligibility (Para 12) |
| 10. status of ineligible candidates across railways (Para 13) |
| 11. prior tribunal dismissal referenced (Para 14) |
| 12. applicants argue delay not their fault (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 13. notification cut-off date critical for eligibility (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 14. misrepresentation in applications justifies rejection (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 15. aitt exam dates contradict certificates (Para 24 , 25) |
| 16. railway board clarifies no relaxation possible (Para 26) |
| 17. prior decisions uphold strict eligibility (Para 27 , 28) |
| 18. oas dismissed; no relief granted (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
(per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J))
Since the issue involved in all these OAs is similar, all the OAs were heard to
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
