CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2018) 12 CAT CK 0164

Ghanshyam Das vs Union Public Service Commission

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 3 December 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 4238 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 333 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The UPSC issued an advertisement in April, 2014 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Director (Gr. - II), (Mechanical) in the office of Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Organization. In all eight posts were to be filled. The candidates holding degree in Mechanical Engineering were made eligible to apply. One post is reserved in favour of Physically Handicapped Candidates. The applicant responded to the notification. He is a Physically Handicapped Candidate, holding degree in Mechanical Engineering. He was also called for interview. However, his name did not figure in the name of selected candidate. Hence, this O.A. is filed, assailing the action of the respondents.

2.

The applicant contends that on being satisfied about his qualification, the respondents invited him for interview and despite the fact that there were only two candidates in the Physically Handicapped Category and other candidate did not turn up, the respondents did not select him. Further grounds are also urged.

3.

Respondents filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the selection was on the basis of interview and against the minimum of 40 marks stipulated (50 in case of general candidate), the applicant secured only 22 marks and accordingly he was not selected.

4.

We heard Mr. Praveen Nagar and Mr. Alamgir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Dr. Ch. Shamshudin Khan for respondent No. 2.

5.

The selection to the post in question was exclusively through interview. It is not disputed that applicant was eligible to be considered. However, in the interview he secured only 22 marks. The minimum stipulated for the post, is 50 in the scale of 100, and for reserved category, it was reduced to 40. Since, the applicant secured only 22 marks, he was not selected.

6.

No exception can be taken to the action taken by the respondents. The O.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.