Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shalini Negi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant qualified exams but excluded from merit list despite vacancy. (Para 2) |
| 2. recruitment process flawed by discrepancies, nepotism, and irregular revisions. (Para 4) |
| 3. merit list revised for reservation compliance; no vacancy for waitlisted applicant. (Para 5) |
| 4. issues framed: no right from waiting list; process not arbitrary. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. waiting list confers no indefeasible right to appointment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. revision for reservation mandatory; humanitarian grounds not arbitrary. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. no evidence of mala fides; no vacancy, stale claim dismissed. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. oa dismissed without costs; pending applications disposed. (Para 21 , 22) |
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“a) DIRECTIONS to issue upon the respondent authorities directing them to issue joining letter to the Applicant with immediate effect while extending the terms of contract from the date of joining.
b) DIRECTION to issue upon the respondent authorities directing them/their agents and/or subordinates to produc
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
