Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Geetanjali Aamber – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's contractual engagement and prior tribunal directions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim to preference based on covid duty notification (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. non-binding advisory; ineligibility due to late documents (Para 5) |
| 4. advisory not enforceable; strict eligibility compliance required (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. no merit clearance; no right to appointment (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. oa dismissed; interim order vacated (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
1.By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“i. Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the notice dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 [‘Impugned Notices’]. True copy of the notice dated 04.12.2023 and 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - A 1 (Colly)
ii Issue an appropriate direction or order directing the Respondents to Implement the notification dated 03.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 i.e., Union of India qua preference which has to be given to the Applicants who have rendere
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
