- (1.) This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 8.11.99 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1195 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the private respondent was allowed directing-'Since the matter had already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondents and to take a different view. Therefore, in the result we set aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 5, Shri Tapan Kumar Mistry in the post of EDMC and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the said post according to his merit within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Be it mentioned here that the respondent No. 5 did not appear before this Tribunal and did not file any counter though he was served with a copy of this application. It is also ordered here that the applicant would not get any arrear of pay and he would get the pay only from the date of his joining the duty".
(2.) The petitioner as also the private respondent were the candidates for appointment in the post of EDMC at Sandelerbill B.P.O. According to the private respondent although he secured highest mark, as one of his relative was employed his case was not considered for appointment. On the aforementioned ground, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The impugned order has been passed ex parte.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to an unreported decision of this Court dated 23.3.2000 in W.P.C.T. 308 of 1998 (Kishori Mondal v. Union of India and Ors.) and submitted on the basis thereof that the order of the learned Tribunal is contrary to or inconsistent therewith.;