M PRAKASH vs UT OF PUDUCHERRY

1 OA 310/1144/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA 310/01144/2022
nd
Dated Tuesday the 22 day of September Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. M. L. SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)
1. M. Prakash, S/o Mr. Mohanasundaram.
2. V. Gokulakrishnan, S/o Velu.
3. R. Rajesh, S/o. Ranganathan.
4. R. Mohan, S/o. Ravi.
5. R. Mugesh, S/o.Ragupathy.
6. S. Ajeeth, S/o. Sivaraman.
7. S. Prem Sugunesh, S/o. Subramanian.
8. B. Vijayakumar, S/o Balasubramanian.
9. G. Sandhanaprakasam, S/o Gnanaprakasam.
10. M. Nitin, S/o Mohandass.
11. K. Arishkarkki, S/o. Kasilingam
12. T. Balachandar, S/o Theepavali.
13. V. Thamizharasi, D/o Vinayagam.
14. A. Ranjitha, D/o Arumugam.
15. E. Sriranjani, D/o Ezhumalai.
16. V. Priyadharshini, D/o Vinayagam.
17. S. Nivetha, D/o Sundaramoorthy.
18. R. Rekha, D/o Rajendran.
19. R. Devi, D/o Rajan. … Applicants
By Advocate M/s. J. Rajmohan
Vs
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605009.
3. The Superintendent of Police, (Headquarters)
Puducherry- 605002.

2 OA 310/1144/2022
4. The Officer on Special Duty,
Police Department,
Puducherry -605002.
… Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa

3 OA 310/1144/2022
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J))
In the present OA, the applicants have sought the following
relief:
“(i) To set aside the Notification
No.237/Estt.I(B)/Rectt/PC/2022 dated 26.11.2022 in so
far the applicants and consequently direct the
respondents to keep the applicants post as reserved post
for the post of Police Constables with reference to
recruitment Notification No. 237 / Estt.
I(B)/Rectt/PC/2022 dated 26.11.2022 and to appoint
them as the notification dated 22.03.2022 in the said post
and
ii) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case to meet the ends of justice and
iii) To award costs of the applicants. ”
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our
attention to para 5 of the reply statement stating that none of the
applicants were placed in provisional select list but they were
placed in provisional wait list.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that since 20
candidates did not join the post, there were 20 vacancies and
since they were waitlisted, they were entitled for the vacant posts.
However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
Recruitment Committee was convened to decide and select the

4 OA 310/1144/2022
next eligible candidates from provisional wait list which was
published vide No. 2841/Estt.I (B)/A1(Pol)/2022 dated
22.03.2022 and none of the applicants figured in the select list.
Since all 390 vacancies notified vide notification dated
20.08.2018 stand filled, no vacancy was available to be filled.
4. In view of the above, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M. L. Srivastava) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
22.09.2026
Digitally signed
by LOKESH M
Date: 2026.10.22
16:12:53 +05'30'
LOKESH M
COURT MASTER
CAT CB