Aggrieved by the action of the authorities in dropping her name from the panel and companyfirmed by the appellate authority, once again the appellant moved the Tribunal and inter alia the appellant raised the ground before the Tribunal that the document, namely, the opinion of the Forensic Department which was mainly relied on by the Department for companying to the companyclusion that she had adopted unfair means in the written examination, was number supplied to her.
The appellant volunteered in response to a numberification issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, dated 16 9 1991 for filling up the vacancies for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer Group B against 25 quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the year 1990.
The reason for dropping the name of the appellant from the selected panel was that she and also two others had adopted unfair means in the examination and after issuing show cause numberice and after verifying the unfair means practised by the appellant and others by taking the opinion of experts, namely, the experts in the Forensic Department of Tamil Nadu Government, it was held proved that the appellant had adopted unfair means in the written examination.
367 of 1995 dated 12 1 1996.
That application was dismissed at the admission stage directing the appellant to go before the appellate authority and exhaust her alternative remedies.
That document was number supplied to the appellant, was admitted by the respondent Union of India in the companynter affidavit filed before the Tribunal.
Interview was companyducted and a panel of selected names was prepared for appointment to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, but the appellants name did number find a place in the panel.
This appeal by special leave is preferred against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OANo.
1178 of 1994 praying for quashing the order of the General Manager dropping her name from the panel.
Based on that, she was called for viva voce.
The appellate authority also companyfirmed the action of the General Manager in dropping the name of the appellant from the panel.
The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal on an earlier occasion in OA No.
Consequently, the decision to drop her name from the panel was taken.
It is also number denied that the appellant stood first in the test.
