- (1.) WE have heard Sri T.S. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram, the Petitioner in writ petition No. 23548 of 2008, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhary, Petitioner in writ petition No. 20005 and Sri K.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India in writ petition No. 21992 of 2008. Learned Counsel appears for the Respondents.
(2.) ALL the three writ petitions arise out of order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 08.01.2008 passed in Original Application No. 327 of 2006, filed by the applicant Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram for impleading Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhari as Respondent No. 4. The Tribunal has directed a review D.P.C. to be conducted and the decision to be implemented within three months' and arrears of pay and allowance be paid to the Respondent No. 4, in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 08.05.2002 the same would be made available to the applicant as well.
(3.) SRI Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel for Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhary submits that Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram, cannot be considered for review D.P.C. as she was not selected. She was considered as best amongst failures. She challenged the decision and lost in the Tribunal and thereafter in the High Court. It is submitted by Sri Budhwar that Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhari had challenged her non consideration on he grounds that she was ineligible and had not completed five years of service. It was found that the Tribunal that the Petitioner had completed five years of service and had wrongly been excluded for consideration initially. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the objection and the review petition was allowed with the direction that the review D.P.C. be held for promotion on the post of Matron from Staff Nurse vide notification dated 11.12.1995. The writ petition filed by Union of India, against the judgment for allowing review petition was dismissed on 02.12.2004 with following directions: The contesting Respondent has been made nursing sister w.e.f. 23.11.1995. This means that she has to be treated as nursing sister on the date of notification namely on 11.12.1995. In view of this, the Tribunal below has rightly heard the review application and has directed the department to consider the claim of the contesting Respondent. There is no illegality in the judgment. The writ petition has not merit. It is dismissed.;