Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 03 CAT CK 0163

Vipin Kumar Bhargava vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 22 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 636 Of 2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 828 Of 2021

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

10 paragraphs · 352 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) issued a notification on 15.11.2019, inviting applications for various posts, including the one of Assistant Secretary. The persons who are made eligible to apply, are the officers of Central/State Govt./ UT Administration or Central/ State Autonomous/ Statutory Organizations/ PSUs/ Reputed Private Organizations in supervisory capacity with experience in General Administration/Establish Accounts in the grades of Rs.6600/- or 03 years regular service in PB 3 or 05 years' regular service in PB2 of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay 4600/-.

2.

The applicant is working as Assistant Section Officer in the Central Government. He submitted the application, but on the date of interview, his candidature is said to have been rejected on the ground that he does not have experience in supervisory capacity.

3.

The applicant contends that he fits into the category 3 which provides for 5 years' regular service in PB2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and despite that, his case was rejected. He made a representation on 06.03.2021 in this behalf. This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to allow him to appear in interview.

4.

We heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

5.

The applicant no doubt, was issued a call letter for interview. However, at that stage, the respondents are said to have declined to interview him on the ground that he did not have the experience in the supervisory capacity. No order was passed in that behalf. It is stated that the selection process was completed.

6.

We are of the view that the respondents need to pass order on the representation dated 03.03.2021 submitted by the applicant, within a period of four weeks from to date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the applicant to pursue the remedies, depending upon the nature of the order, which the respondents may pass.

7.

With the above observation, the OA is disposed of.

Pending MA also stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.