Ranjit Kumar Pattnaik v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench and six
2006-09-18
I.M.QUDDUSI, N.PRUSTY
body2006
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 18.09.06 — Heard Sri G. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Patnaik, learned Central Government counsel for opposite parties. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No.668 of 1999 dismissing the Original Application. The petitioner has challenged the selection for the post of labourer with the allegation that when he participated in the selection, the opposite parties directed to carry a weight of 100 kg. bag as part of process of selection and further demanded Rs.80,000/- as bribe to secure the job. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on the ground that with regard to the allegation of demand of bribe he has also made representation to the Minister and the Tribunal has nothing to do. Further, in respect of allegation that during the process of selection he was asked to carry a weight of 100 kg. bag, the Tribunal observed that the department has denied the same and it was stated on behalf of the department that all the candidates were asked to carry only a weight of 35 kg. bag. The learned Tribunal dis¬missed the Original Application on the ground that once the petitioner has participated in the process of selection and having failed in getting selected it is not open for him to challenge the selection process. Mr. Ashok Kumar Patnaik, learned Central Government counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 in which it has been held that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and he subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of enter¬taining an application challenging the said examination will not arise. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we see no good ground to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed. Petition dismissed.