Skip to content


Mrs. Anita Pandey, W/O. C.S. Pandey Vs. Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Application No. 424 of 2008 & Miscellaneous Application No. 337 of 2009
Judge
AppellantMrs. Anita Pandey, W/O. C.S. Pandey
RespondentMinistry of Rural Development, Government of India and Others
Advocates:Counsel for the Applicant: Khader Mohiddin, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents: B. Raj Kiran, SC for NIRD.
Excerpt:
.....the impugned notification. thereafter, the respondents have not pursued with the said notification. on the other hand, they have issued fresh notification on 27.06.2009 notifying the very same post for filling it up by way of direct recruitment under regulation 7 clause 2 of the recruitment rules. in other words, the respondents have accepted the contention of the applicant herein that the said post shall not be filled up on deputation basis. 4. learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the department itself conceded the request of the applicant and therefore, no further orders need be passed in this application. learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents may be recorded and the application may.....
Judgment:

ORAL ORDER:

(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman)

Heard Mr. Khader Mohiddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Raj Kiran, learned standing counsel for respondents.

2. This application is filed challenging the action of the respondents in notifying the post of Dy. Director (Official Language) for filling it up on deputation basis vide Advertisement published in Times of India on 19.06.2008.

3. It is contended by the applicant that the said post cannot be filled up on deputation basis and it shall be filled up only by way of direct recruitment. This Tribunal on the very first day of the hearing, while granting time for filing reply by the respondents, passed an interim order to the effect that no appointment shall be made in pursuance of the impugned notification. Thereafter, the respondents have not pursued with the said notification. On the other hand, they have issued fresh notification on 27.06.2009 notifying the very same post for filling it up by way of direct recruitment under regulation 7 clause 2 of the recruitment rules. In other words, the respondents have accepted the contention of the applicant herein that the said post shall not be filled up on deputation basis.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the department itself conceded the request of the applicant and therefore, no further orders need be passed in this application. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents may be recorded and the application may be closed as no further orders need be passed.

5. In view of the said submissions, O.A. is disposed of as no further orders need be passed. As the O.A. is disposed of, M.A. No. 337 of 2009 is also closed as unnecessary. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //