Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 5185

M. Mohamed Hazaruthin vs Union Of India

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Swaminathan, Member (J) · M.L. Srivastava, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
OA/310/01363/2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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 · 344 words

ORAL ORDER

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

“To direct the respondent to appoint the applicant to the post of Upper Division Clerk under the B.C.M. quota with all other consequential benefits with effect from the date on which the other candidates in the waiting list were appointed and to pass such other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice.”

2.

Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant is claiming appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk under the BCM quota and for other consequential benefits. The applicant is a B.Tech. Degree holder and belongs to Muslim religion and the respondent has issued a notification on 11.8.2015 calling for applications for filling up 503 vacancies of Upper Division Clerk. Out of which 2% have to be filled up with BCM candidates. The respondent has issued waiting list as well which contained the name of BCM candidates and the respondent has issued appointment orders to the 97 candidates from the waiting list. Out of which 4 candidates must be filled up from the BCM category whereas the respondents had appointed only 1 candidate and the applicant's name was placed as second candidate in the waiting list. Out of the 10 candidates who were selected, only 9 persons have turned up for appointment and the rest of the vacancies must be filled with BCM candidates which shows that there are 3 vacancies available. Hence the present OA is filed seeking the aforesaid relief.

3.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant filed a memo dated 01.09.2026 and submitted that he has not received any instruction from the applicant and hence the name of the applicant may be printed in the list by removing the name of the counsel.

4.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the OA is dismissed for want of instructions from the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.