AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—The Petitioner has remained unsuccessful as original applicant. He has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Central Adminstrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity ''the Tribunal'') holding that the Petitioner cannot claim selection on deputation basis as a matter of right. The argument raised by her that she is more meritorious than Sh. H.S. Sihag- Respondent No. 6. did not find favour with the Tribunal. The other argument that her husband is also working in U.T. Chandigarh, was rejected.
Mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has drawn our attention to the comparative record of the Petitioner vis-a-vis Respondent No. 6. The record of both the candidates are of very good nature which by itself would not result into a conclusion that if the Petitioner has earned greater number of very good reports as compared to Respondent No. 6 than she would become entitled to be sent on deputation. The record of both the candidates is comparable and it cannot be concluded that the record of Respondent No 6 is bad. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.