CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2018) 11 CAT CK 0130

Neelam Yadav vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 2 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A), S.N. Terdal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No. 222 Of 2018, Original Application No. 2688 Of 2017

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

5 paragraphs · 376 words

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

1.

This Review Application (RA) has been filed by the original applicant under Section 22 (3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order of the Tribunal dated 04.10.2018 in OA No.2688/2017.

2.

It is stated by the review applicant in the RA that in the 5th line of sub para (ii) of para no.10 of the order dated 04.10.2018, the word 'PGT' is wrongly typed, it should have been typed as 'TGT' because both the post code, i.e., post code no.07/13 and the post code no.109/12 relate to TGT (Hindi) and not to PGT (Hindi) as is apparent from the rejection notice no.159 and the result notice dated 24.11.2015. It is further submitted that the words 'post code No.07/12' are necessary to be added in the 6th line of sub para (ii) of para-10 of the judgment because the rejection of the candidature of the applicant is done in post code no.07/13 and if the words 'post code no.07/13' are not added, the respondents will not recommend the name of the applicant for appointment to the post under post code no.07/13 against which the respondents rejected her candidature.

2.1 In view of the aforesaid apparent errors on the face of the order under review, the applicant has made a prayer to allow this RA by substituting the word 'PGT' with 'TGT (Hindi)' in the 5th line of sub para (ii) of para 10 and the words 'post code no.07/13 may also be directed to be added in the 6th line of the said para after the words 'Post Code No.109/12', in the interest of justice.

3.

We have gone through the averments made in the RA and have also perused the records. We are satisfied that in the 5th line of sub para (ii) of para-10 the word 'PGT' is wrongly typed instead of 'TGT'. We also find that the words ''Post Code No.07/13' are also required to be added after the words 'post code No.109/12' in the 6th line of para-10. We, therefore, allow this RA, in circulation, and direct the Registry to carry out the above corrections in the original order in red ink and issue a corrected copy of the order to both the parties.