Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Rajni – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' covid duty and prior tribunal order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-compliance with preference notification (Para 4) |
| 3. limitation, advisory nature, no merit qualification (Para 5) |
| 4. communication advisory, no enforceable right (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. no merit, cannot alter completed process (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. no non-compliance, participation bars challenge (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. oa dismissed for lack of merit (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
“i. Issue an appropriate direction or order directing the Respondents to Modify/Amend the Recruitment Notice No. F. Direct recruitment/Admn.II/2021/2909 dated 05.04.2021 & No. F. Direct recruitment/Admn. II/2021/5483 dated 21.06.2021 and the subsequent notice F. No. A/820/2023-RR/664 dated 04.12.2023 & F. No. A/820/2023-RR/805 dated 08.02.2024 [„Impugned Notices‟] to the extent of grant of preference to Applicants in terms of the notification dated 03.05.2021 in compliance of Judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in Original Application No. 855 of
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
