Saturday, August 10, 2013

Appointment plea rejected by Madras bench, HC dismisses petition against transfer

DC | P. Arul |

Chennai: The Madras bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed an application fro­m the general manager of the Integrated Coach Fac­tory (ICF), to constitute a fresh selection committee comprising officials from traffic and accounts of the railway board and conduct a fresh selection for the post of member (technical), Railway Cla­ims Tri­bunal.
Dismissing the petition from Abhay Kumar Kha­nna who was working as GM, ICF, the bench comprising judicial member K. Elango and administrative member Naresh Gupta held that CAT has no jurisdiction and competence over the issue.
Advocate A. Abdul Ajees, counsel for the petitioner, contended that Abhay Kumar Khanna had app­lied for the post of member (technical), in the Railway Claims Tribunal in res­ponse to an advertisement dated January 31, 2013 and attended an interview on April 13, 2013.
The selection committee was not constituted as per law. On May 23, 2013, he submitted a representation to the ministry of railways. As there was no response, the official filed this petition.
P. Srinivasan, senior standing counsel for railways, argued that CAT has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Citing a judgment of the HC  where it was observed that the selection of a member (judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal was governed by the provisions of the Railway Claims Act, Srinivasan said CAT cannot go into the aspects of appointment of a person to the bench of another tribunal, also governed by a similar enactment. The Railway Claims Tribunal was on the same footing as that of CAT, he added.
Concurring, the bench dismissed the application.
HC dismisses petition against transfer
Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed a petition from a military engineer, challenging an order of the authorities, transferring him to Hyderabad.
Dismissing the petition from P.R. Anand Kumar, a division bench, comprising justices R. Banumathi and T.S. Sivagnanam, said, “The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is fa­irly well-settled.
The hig­h court, while exercising its juri­s­diction under Article 226 of the Cons­titution, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Ther­ef­ore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with them as a matter of routine.”
Anand entered the military engineering services as surveyor assistant, grade-II in 1985. In November 2011, he was transferred from Chen­nai to Visakhapatnam. He appr­oac­hed the CAT, which allowed his petition and directed the authorities to pass fresh orders. After withdrawing the earlier order, the authorities tran­sferred Anand to Hyderabad on February 10, 2012. CAT again  dismissed his second petition.

0 comments:

Welcome To AILRSA....

Visitors

Admin Area

Blog Archive

AILRSA 1970 - . Powered by Blogger.

Follow by Email

Are You Satisfied with 7th Pay commission ?

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Text Widget

Followers

-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------