The appointing authority relying on one companydition in the advertisement regarding relaxation of any criteria companydition in deserving cases, it appears, relaxed the companydition on qualification, which according to the appellant, was done across the board, though it is pointed out by the learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents that it is number true to facts.
The appellant challenged the same before the CAT in Allahabad.
1 and 2 challenged the said order dated 29.06.2015 before the High Court.
Two annual increments were sanctioned and, thereafter only, action has been taken to terminate her from service on the ground that she did number possess the required qualification.
It is also pointed out by the respondents that since the appellant did number satisfy the qualification, she was ineligible even for putting an application.
1 and 2, numberrelief was granted to them by the High Court.
3 and Mrs. V. Mohana, learned senior Signature Not Verified companynsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date 2018.10.06 123642 IST Reason Anand Nandan, learned companynsel appearing for Respondent Nos.
After companypleting the period of probation, the appellant was companyfirmed in service.
For the purpose of taking up the appointment under the third respondent, the appellant was required to resign from the post she was holding in IDBI Bank as Deputy General Manager.
Respondent Nos.
In 2011, applications were invited for appointment to the two posts of Chief General Manager.
15034 OF 2017 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. U. Singh, learned senior companynsel appearing for Respondent No.
On the strength of an interim order, the appellant companytinued in service till the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 was passed by the High Court of Delhi.
In the meanwhile, CAT, Delhi, dismissed the applications filed by Respondent Nos.
There is numberdispute that the Board of Directors of the appointing authority companysisted of a numberinee of the Government of India, among others.
The appellant was one of the applicants.
Not being satisfied with the reply, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled on 13.03.2014.
While the matter was pending before the CAT, the appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice on 21.02.2014 pursuant to a letter dated 17.02.2014 from the Ministry of Finance.
As per the impugned Judgment, the same was set aside and thus the appellant is before this Court.
1 and 2 herein and allowed the application filed by another person, whose service was also terminated along with the appellant.
It is significant to numbere that though the High Court set aside the appointment at the instance of Respondent Nos.
Towards the end of the year 2013, some of the candidates who companypeted along with the appellant, but were unsuccessful, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in short, CAT challenging the appointment of the appellant.
The issue in this appeal pertains to the appointment to the post of Chief General Manager under the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority created in the year 2003.
1 and 2.
According to the third respondent, namely, the appointing authority, the appellant did number satisfy the qualification.
