Ravendra Garg vs Union Of India And Ors.

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.2215/2011

%                                                       March 06, 2013

RAVENDRA GARG                                         .... Petitioner
                          Through:       None.

                          versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                               .... Respondents

Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Shodhan Babu, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Rahul Kriplani, Advocate for respondent No.6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. In this writ petition three reliefs were claimed and which read as under:-

"(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction quashing the letter dated 16.03.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1 and steps, if any, taken to give effect to the letter dated 16.03.2011;

(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction to the Respondent No.1 directing the Respondent No.1 to immediately take steps for finalising the selection of Director(Engineering) in pursuance of Advertisement dated 15.06.2010;

(c) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari against the Respondent No.1 calling for the records of the files relating to the issuance of letter dated 16.03.2011 and Advertisement dated 15.06.2010"

2. So far as prayer (b) is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the appointment to the post of Director (Engineering) took place, the said Director (Engineering) already has retired thereafter. Therefore, this relief has become infructuous.

3. So far as reliefs (a) and (c) are concerned pertaining to the policy of making the retirement age as 60 years for Board of Directors level appointment and which is challenged in this writ petition, it is urged on behalf of the respondent No.3-NPCC that petitioner in fact accepting this impugned letter dated 16.3.2011 applied for being considered to the post of Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3. The advertisement in this regard was issued on 2.8.2011 and the said advertisement does not state that the same is subject to decision in this writ petition.

4. Once the petitioner participated in selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 2.8.2011 which specifies the age limit as 60 years, and the petitioner does not participate in such selection process by reserving his WP(C) No.2215/2011 Page 2 of 3 rights in the writ petition, the petitioner has therefore accepted the letter dated 16.3.2011 and hence will be estopped from pursuing the present petition. I may note that the petitioner was not successful in the selection process initiated through the advertisement dated 2.8.2011 and one Sh. A.K. Jhamb was appointed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director from 4.9.2012 and which is so recorded in the order dated 18.9.2012 of this Court.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous as also by applying the principle of estoppel against the petitioner. In case, respondent No.6-NPCC Staff Association, who was subsequently impleaded in this writ petition continues to have grievance against the letter dated 16.3.2011, it is given liberty to file appropriate independent proceedings in accordance with law seeking legal redressal against the letter dated 16.3.2011.

6. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 06, 2013 Ne WP(C) No.2215/2011 Page 3 of 3