SAT Reply Permanent Appointment

Preliminary Submissions/Objections:

1. That the present OA is not maintainable at all. ______The applicant has not joined all the necessary and proper parties. Therefore, the OA is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

2. That the applicant has concealed the material fact that the replying respondent has already joined after being appointed. It is also submitted that the applicant has voluntarily offered to work gratis free as Water Carrier and this vests no legal or constitutional right in favour of the applicant to claim for his being appointed permanently. It is also pertinent to submit herewith that the applicant is possessing good landed property and other source of income. On the other hand the replying respondent is a destitute lady and she is getting no financial help  and has no other source of income. The replying respondent has children to take care of. The appointment of the replying respondent is perfectly in consonance with the Rule 12 of the Scheme for appointment of the Part Time Water Carriers. The replying respondent also belongs to OBC.

3. That the principle of falsus uno falsus omnibus applies against the applicant.

4. That the applicant has got no indefeasible right in his favour. 

5. That the applicant has no locus standi to file the present OA.

6. That the OA is also bad for non-disclosure of better particulars. The particulars have been purposely concealed. The applicant has not come with clean hands and therefore, the principle of suppressio veri suggestio falsi applies against the applicant. The applicant has purposely made mis-representation of facts. 

7. That the applicant has not exhausted alternative remedies, which is mandatory requirement before coming before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The matter is not of urgent nature so as to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal without first exhausting the alternative remedies. No irrevocable or irreparable loss has been caused to the applicant neither any interim stay order was involved. Therefore, the OA is premature and deserves to be dismissed on this account alone.

8. That the OA is hit by gross delay and laches and is not maintainable. 

9. That the OA is also not maintainable as all the applicants have different causes of action. Therefore, OA is bad for mis-joinder of cause of actions. 

10. That the selection and appointment of the applicant has been done by duly constituted selection committee in accordance with the rules governing the matter. No malafide has been attributed to any of the member of the selection committee and as such there is no other ground available to the applicant to challenge the selection of the replying respondent. The applicant has taken chance to appear before the selection committee and after failing to make it he cannot now approbate and reprobate. 

* Application under Rule 8 (3) of HP Administrative Tribunal Rules for condonation of delay in filing of reply on behalf of the Replying Respondent is also filed. 

Legal Process Outsourcing This Document

User Comments

Send
Free

Add to Reading List Download Document

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
window.onload = function(){ };