Libertatem Magazine

Central Administrative Tribunal Dismisses Original Application On Grounds of being Inefficient

Contents of this Page

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad decided on a case where the candidate’s case was different from his community members dated June 10th, 2021. The writ was issued under Article 14 (2) of the constitution of India. 

Facts of the Case

A writ was issued on the order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 8.4.2019 issued by respondent no. 2.

Secondly, a writ was ordered on the direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to finalize the candidature of applicant provisionally and sent the same to respondent no. 1 for allocation of service and training subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and Lucknow Bench.

Thirdly, a writ to issue the order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the parity as given in misc. bench no. 8666 of 2014 (Rajendra Prasad Nayak Ors. vs. State of U.P. and others) under Article 14 (2) of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Shephard and others vs. Union of India which had been subsequently explained elaborately by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Dass.

He appeared in the Civil Services examination and came out with flying colours in the year 2018. But unavailability of requisite documents led to his detention from the service allocation. 


The counsel for the applicant filed Rejoinder Affidavit in which he repeated almost all the same declarations made in the O.A. and requested that as the applicant is a similarly placed candidate and several other candidates of Nayak community have already been given provisional posting by the respondents’ department, several of them have even jointed and are working on the various posts, the applicant is also entitled to the same treatment on the ground of parity, valuable consideration had been given to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

In all the cases quoted, it appeared that the Hon’ble High Court either disposed of the Writ Petition or directed the parties to file counter and O.A. No. 588/2019 Rejoinder affidavits and in the meantime, respondents were directed to give the provisional appointment to the petitioners, if they are otherwise qualified, subject to the outcome of their writ petitions.

Court’s Observation 

Here, the tribunal observed that the status of the applicant is not similar to the other candidates who had been given provisional postings by the respondents and nothing about the fresh caste certificates has been presented by the counsel. It was said that there is no doubt that all the other candidates who belonged to Nayak community were notified as ST by Presidential order and the applicant too belonged to Nayak Community but his case is different from others due to disparity found in the name of his father as mentioned in his High School Certificate and Caste Certificate. 

Court’s Decision

The tribunal decided that as the case of this candidate is different from other Nayak community members so he cannot be given the same benefits as others. A writ petition was advised as the remedy. The OA was held responsible and was accordingly dismissed. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author