1. This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Bench Jodhpur.
2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this petition for writ is that vide letter dated 06.11.2003 the respondents called the petitioner to face interview for recruitment to the post of ‘Chowkidar’. The process of selection was initiated against three existing vacancies, however, the respondents ultimately decided to fill up only two vacancies, accordingly, two persons were employed. The petitioner who was at serial No. 3 in the panel of selected incumbents approached the CAT, Jodhpur by way of filing an original application for employing him as ‘Chowkidar’. The original application aforesaid came to be dismissed on 04.3.2010 An original application subsequent thereto was filed by the petitioner with an assertion that the respondents employed one Shri. Shiv Darshan Mishra as ‘Chowkidar’ though, he was at serial No. 4 in the panel of selected incumbents. The original application aforesaid also came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned on 07.10.2014
3. Before us arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CAT, Jodhpur fialed to appreciate that Shri. Shiv Darshan Mishra was at lower pedestal than the petitioner, therefore, the post should have been offered to him.
4. From perusal of the facts averred in the petition for writ, it appears that Shri. Shiv Darshan Mishra being not employed as ‘Chowkidar’ approached Hon'ble Delhi High Court by way of filing an petition for writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid petition for writ came to be disposed of on 28.5.2004 with a direction to the respondents to consider candidature of Shri. Shiv Darshan Mishra for the purpose of appointment as Majdoor, if any vacancy exists. The respondents in compliance of the order aforesaid, employed Shiv Darshan Mishra as ‘Chowkidar’ in place of Majdoor as both the posts were having same pay-scale. The appointment being given under the directions of Delhi High Court case of the petitioner cannot be compared with the case of Shri. Shiv Darshan Mishra, specially in the circumstance that his original application was examined and dismissed earlier on merits.
5. Looking to this factual position no error has been committed by the Tribunal that may warrant interference of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.