Aggrieved, writ petition was filed by the respondents herein before the Madras High Court which allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment of the appellant.
Since the appellant was number called for the interview he filed OA.
Hence this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.
9521 and 18563 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.
5274 OF 2007 Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Instead of doing so, it disposed off the O.A. filed before it by directing the UPSC to publish the result.
21870 of 2001.
By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear in the interview.
Accordingly the result was published and since the appellant was found first in the merit list, he was appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture on 23.3.2001, and has been working as such since then.
1045/97 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
One of the reason given by the High Court for setting aside the appellants appointment was that the Tribunal should have gone into the question of eligibility of the appellant herein.
16909/2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
The appellant respondent No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
We need number go into the question whether the Tribunal should have decided the case on merits since we are deciding it on merits.
3 in the Writ Petition applied for the post of Deputy Director Agriculture in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry.
This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 19.9.2006 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos.
Accordingly, the appellant herein was appointed by the Government of Pondicherry vide order dated 23.3.2001 on the post of Deputy Director Agriculture .
