SAT Reply Selection Chalenge

In the docuemnt the statute is "civil litigation"and the usage being that to challenge selection process

The contents are:-

Reply on behalf of the respondent No. _______

Respectfully Sheweth :

Preliminary Submissions/Objections

. 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. The present OA is motivated, instigated, false, frivolous and vexatious

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.

That the applicant has concealed the material fact that the replying respondent has already joined on _____ at GPS _____ as _____ after being appointed. _____It is also submitted that the applicant has voluntarily offered to work gratis free as Vidya Upasak in GPS _____ wef _-___ 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 a _____son of _____ and is possessing good landed property and other source of income. On the other hand the replying respondent is a ____destitute lady as her husband is_____ and she is getting no financial help from ______ 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 ______ Rules for appointment of the Vidya Upasak. The replying respondent also belongs to _____OBC

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

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

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

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

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.

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

. 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

That without prejudice to above, _______. As per the Yojna the replying respondent scores marks as under viz-a-viz the applicant

And thus it sees its completion

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.