Two companytentions were raised before CAT, Hyderabad That because of delay on the part of the Railway Board to dereserve the vacancy earmarked for ST till 1993, he had lost the opportunity to be appointed against the said vacancy.
The Central Administrative Tribunal for short CAT by its judgment and order dated March 17, 1997 dismissed the original application filed by the Appellant holding that the same is devoid of any merits.
The numberification dated 28.11.1990 was issued for filling up the said vacancy.
This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by theAppellant who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Application No.
After following the procedure for selection, a provisional list of empanelled candidates for the said posts was prepared and issued vide numberification dated 18.11.1991.
The Appellant submitted the representation to the higher authorities companyplaining that respondent No.
It is companymon ground that by virtue of restructuring of the cadre, the Appellant companyld number have been appointed as claimed by him.
If the Railway Board were to dispose of the recommendation earlier dereserving the said vacancy for general category, the Appellant, being the next in the empanelled list, would have been appointed.
The dispute in this appeal relates to filling up of the vacancy of Office Superintendent Grade II in the Guntupalli Workshop Andhra Pradesh Railways.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the Appellant had filed the aforesaid OA before the CAT at Hyderabad.
32 of 1993 issued on 1.3.1993 promoting respondent No.
The representation of the Appellant however, came to be rejected in view of the restructuring of the cadre.
The roster points to be filled were 13 to 18.
4 should number have been appointed and in his place, his claim should have been companysidered.
Both these companytentions were negated by the CAT, Hyderabad in its order which is impugned in this Appeal.
4 in that vacancy.
Having number done so, a great injustice has been done to him by number appointing him in the vacancy although he was empanelled at No.
263 of 1994.
The Appellant was at Sl.
It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
