givi^o'" Bsoch 3 .<' i \. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 3335"" W.P 705 PETITIONERS ^ &...^y : L^7 "y-w ^' '/•l<y fy Goverdhan Prasad Shahu S/0 Shri Om Prakash SHahu aged about 26 years R/0 Near water Tank Akaltara P.OAkaltara Thana Akaltara Disst. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONENT ^;' ,-A ^ ^^^ ^€^^ <^^' ^' 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Suchana Evam Prasaran , Prasar Bharti Shastri Bhawan New Delhi. 2. Director General Doordarshan ,Doordarsan Bhawan Copernicus Marg New Delhi t 3. Chief Engineer (Westorn Zone ) Akashwani Evam Doordarshan 101.M.K.Road Mumbai. 4. The Station Engineer Prasar Bharti, Doordarsahn Maintanance Centre Bilaspur (Chattisgarh) 5. The CollectorBilaspur Disst. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6. Prakash Chand Upadhyaya S/0 Shri M.P.Upadhayaya R/0 Bodri ,P.S.&P.O. Chakarbhata (Camp) District - Bilaspur(Chhattishgarh) 7. Bhupendra Kumar Dixit S/0 Shri Hom Prasad Dixit R/0 Village Achanakpur P.0. Chakarbhata (Camp) District Bilaspur (C.G.) \\ 4- ^fe WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ±._^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUbDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. WRIT PETITCON N0.2450/05 Petitioner Respondents Prakash Chand Upadhyay Vs Union of India <& others <& WRIT PETITION N0.3335/05 Petitioner Respondents Vs (yovardhan Prasad Sahu Union of India <& others Present: Mr. P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 2450/05. Mr. Avinash Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 3335/05 and respondent No.6 in W.P. No.2450/05 Mrs.Fouzia Mirza, Asst. Solicitor General of India for respondent Union of India. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. with Mr. Ajit Singh. P.L. for the State. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai <& Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for the respondent No.6 in W.P. 2450/05. Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate for respondent-Bhupendra Kuma bixit. ORAL JUbGMENT (Passed on 26th April. 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as both these writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 17.5.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') in O.A.1 No.283/04 whereby origjnal application preferred by the respondent No.7-Bhupendra Kumar Dixit has been partly allowed, selection list dated 18.9.2003 was quashed and the respondents were directed to hold a fresh selection to the post of Technician as per rules. y M 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Technician, name of the petitioner- PrakaSh Chand Upadhyay and respondent No.7 were forwarded by the District Employment Exchange office, Bilaspur. Similarly, name of petitioner Goverdhan Prasad Sahu was forwarded by the bistrict Employment Exchange Office. Jangjir-Champa. Thereafter, call letters we.re issued to the eligible candidates and the petitioners of these writ petitions have been appointed on the post of Technician vide select list dated 18.9.2003. 3. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioners, 4he respondent No.7 herein preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribundl mainly on the grounds that the petitioners were not having requisite qualification and experience certificate. Petitioner Goverdhan Prasad Sahu had not completed one year apprentice training, which is one of essential requirement for selection on the post of Technician. Further, he was shown to have passed ITI training as regular student from Orissa in the year 2001. whereas in the same year he has also appeared as regular student of Electronics Training in the State of Chhattisgarh. Similarly, in the year 2000-01 the petitioner Pral,ash Chand Upadhyay appeared in M.A. (Previous) examination from Govt. Degree College, Jarhabhat as a regular student and in the same year he has done apprenticeship training in Nova Steel and Iron Limited. Daguri, District Bilaspur, which is situated 35 kms away from Bilaspur. Name of the petitioner Prakash Chand Upadhyay was sponsored by two Employment Exchange, which is not permissible under the law. 'i^8& ^,1-J \A^ -J 4. The tribunal vide impugned order dated 17.5.2005 partly allowed the onginal application of the respondent No.7 herein and quash the selection list dated 18.9.2003. 5. In the case of petitioner-Goverdhan Prasad Sahu, the tribunal has held that he appeared in three different examinations held at three different places i.e. Bhuvaneshwar, Rourkela <& Janjgir-Champa (CG), which was not possible. However, learned counsel for the petitioner-Goverdhan Prasad Sahu submits that infact the petitioner had taken admission in a coaching institute affiliated to Budhvir Industrial Training Center at Bartoli, Rourkela, District Sudergarh (Orissa), he had gone to Sundergarh for appearing in the examination and the certificate was issued by tbe State Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training, Orissa at Bhubneshwar and therefore, it cannot be said that there are three places where the petitioner has prosecuted his studies. However. we feel that the petitioner has not filed sufficient documents before the tribunal to prove that it was the one and the same institution; the petitioner appeared at different places on different dates i.e. Bhuvaneshwar, Rourkela <& Janjgir-Champa (CG), and appeared in the examination at Sundergarh, the institution was situated at Rourkela and the certificate was issued by the Council, which is situated at Bhubneshwar. 6. In the matter of petitioner Prakash Chand Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that though the question was raised before the learned tribunal that the petitioner studied at two places atone time but the tribunal did not pay attention towards the same, however, the appointment has been quashed on the ground that name of this petitioner was sponsored from two employment exchange. 7. To OUF opinion this can be irregularity but for that reason the selection cannot be vitiated, however, other point which was r <r : fc raised before the tribunal has not been considered by the tribunal. Therefore, we think it proper to remit the matter to the tribunal for fresh adjudication. 8. In view of the above, we hereby quash the Jmpugned order dated 17.5.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.283/04 and remit the matter to the tribunal for fresh adjudication. The parties shall be at liberty to file their additional documents by way of affidavit or otherwise before the tribunal Jn support of their respective cases. 9. Since we have quashed the impugned order, the consequenc^s shall be followed by the respondents. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Roshan/-