news details |
|
|
| CAT quashed the selection of respondent under ALC category, direct to appoint petitioner | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 10: A Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal Comprising B. Anand (A) and Sanjeev Gupta (J) allowed the petition filed by Javed Asad and impugned notification/Final Selection list by SSB issued vide notification No. SSB/SEL/SECY/2023/797-806 dated 14.08.2023 qua the selection/appointment of Vipan Kumar against the post of Junior Pharmacist/Medical Assistant; Division Cadre Kashmir under ALC/IB category (advertised under Item No. 226 vide Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2021 dated 26.03.2021) is quashed and set aside. CAT further directed SSRB is directed to recommend the name of the applicant under ALC category for his appointment against the post of Junior Pharmacist/Medical Assistant; Division Cadre Kashmir (advertised under Item No. 226 of vide Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2021 dated 26.03.2021) to Administrative Secretary, Health, who shall thereon proceed expeditiously.
CAT while allowing the petition, observed that in the instant case, the applicant is a resident of area adjoining Line of Actual Control and it cannot be said that he had obtained the qualification after the cut off date. The authenticity and validity of the certificate dated 24.09.2021 which the applicant had produced at the time of scrutiny of documents is not in dispute and nor it is in dispute that the applicant did not produce the aforesaid certificate. Therefore, it is purely a matter of procedure and the applicant cannot be rendered ineligible for the post in question because of the aforesaid reason in the light of the supra judgements cited at the bar and settled law.
There is one more aspect, which cannot be lost sight of. The applicant was seeking employment on clerical post which is a Class-III category for the purpose of seeking his livelihood. He wanted to get an employment to make his both ends meet and support his family. It was, therefore, his right of livelihood which was required to be considered. On the one hand, there is violation of procedure and on the other hand fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India is under consideration. We are of the considered view that violation of procedure, if any, would be subservient to the dominant factor of Article 21 of Constitution of India, CAT said.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
