UT administration has challenged before the Punjab and Haryana high court the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)'s Chandigarh bench order for review of the merit list of exam held to fill up 1,200 posts of woman police constables in November 2010.
Taking up the petition, a division bench comprising chief justice Arjan Kumar Sikri and justice Rakesh Kumar Jain issued notices of motion to CAT and other parties in the original petition. In its orders on June 6, 2012, on a petition filed by Panipat resident Anju Rathee, the CAT had directed the
Chandigarh administration to review the result, in stages, of all those candidates who had scored 53 marks and less and prepare a new merit list.
Rathee, who had appeared in the written test on November 14, 2010, had informed the CAT that she had secured a total of 49 marks, including 42 in written and seven in interview. However, the last candidate selected got 51 marks. She said that she had correctly answered question number 41 that carried two marks, but its answer in the answer key was wrongly given. This resulted in her not clearing the exam by mere two numbers.
Now, the Chandigarh administration has submitted in its petition that following the CAT orders would affect the rights of all the selected candidates who had undergone training and had been issued constable numbers. It was also contended that all the selected candidates were also not made the party to the case in the CAT and were not given an opportunity to be heard. Stating that it would lead to unnecessary litigation and disturbing the whole merit list, the administration sought quashing of the CAT's orders.
The case would now come up for hearing on March 5.
Now, the Chandigarh administration has submitted in its petition that following the CAT orders would affect the rights of all the selected candidates who had undergone training and had been issued constable numbers. It was also contended that all the selected candidates were also not made the party to the case in the CAT and were not given an opportunity to be heard. Stating that it would lead to unnecessary litigation and disturbing the whole merit list, the administration sought quashing of the CAT's orders.
The case would now come up for hearing on March 5.