Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2024) 03 CAT CK 3415

Zainab Bano & Ors. vs Union Territory Of Ladakh Through Deputy Commissioner/Chairman DSSRB LAHDC Autonomous Hill Development Council Kargil & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 28 March 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prasant Kumar, Member (A) · M.S. Latif, Member (J)
CASE NUMBER
OA 202 of 2024

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 · 290 words

Per Hon’ble Mr.M.S.Latif, J.M.

Through the medium of the instant OA the petitioner seeks quashment of an advertisement notification No. 01/2024 dated 21.2.2024 to the extent of the post of Carpet Assistant/Carpet Mechanic with further direction on the respondents to take a process of selection in notification No. 02/2013 dated 26.2.2013 to its logical conclusion.

2.

Alongside the main OA the petitioner also has sought for an interim relief whereby he seeks stay of the operation of the advertisement notification No. 01/2024 dated 21.2.2024 to the extent of Carpet Assistant/Carpet Mechanic.

3.

The short case of the petitioner is that he seeks a direction to operate the earlier advertisement notice of the year 2013 by seeking a direction to set aside the notification No. 01/2024 dated 21.2.2024. Such a relief cannot be granted belatedly particularly in view of the Reorganization Act of 2019. Undoubtedly employment is a national wealth in which every individual has a right of consideration and in case the petitioner feels so, he can compete in the advertisement notification No. 01/2024 if he otherwise fulfills the requisite qualification and the criteria.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied in case the instant OA is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to address the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is however, made clear that mere treating the OA as a representation does not mean that the decision will be in favour of the petitioner and it is also directed that the representation will be disposed of strictly on its merits.

6.

The OA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.