Sh.Pushpender vs Union Of India & Ors.

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 1975 Del
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2011

Delhi High Court
Sh.Pushpender vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C) Nos.22014/2005

%                           Date of Decision: 05.04.2011

Sh.Pushpender.                                                 ...... Petitioner
                         Through Nemo
                                     Versus
Union of India & Ors.                          ...... Respondents
                   Through Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers                          NO
        may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                     NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be                             NO
        reported in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

* The petitioners have challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd September, 2005 passed in OA No.811 of 2005, titled as 'Sh.Pushpender v. Union of India & Ors.' whereby the OA seeking quashing of amendment to the Recruitment Rules, 2005 notified on 24th March, 2005 & effective from 21st December, 2004 was dismissed.

The petitioners who were Income Tax Inspector had contended that they had become eligible for consideration under the recruitment rules notified on 21st December, 2004, however, no DPC was held despite availability of large number of vacancies and W.P.(C) Nos.22014/2005 Page 1 of 2 thereafter they were not considered for promotion as they had not passed the departmental examination meant for promotion as ITO, pursuant to amendment to Rule 12 by the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2005.

The Tribunal had held that one of the grounds raised that is hardship caused to the petitioners shall not be a ground to negate the right of the respondents to amend the recruitment rules. The other pleas and contentions raised as equality before law and alleged right accrued prior to the amendment in Rules, 2004 were also repelled.

The Tribunal had also held that without qualifying the eligibility examination, the petitioners could not claim right to be promoted. Thus, the Tribunal had repelled the pleas and contentions of the petitioners and had dismissed their OA.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in default. The interim order confirmed by order dated 12th September, 2007 is vacated.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

April 05, 2011.

vk W.P.(C) Nos.22014/2005 Page 2 of 2