Union Of India And Ors vs Amit Rathee And Ors

$~10-11
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                                     W.P.(C) 8311/2016
                                           Date of decision: 21st December, 2016

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                    ..... Petitioner
                      Through    Mr. Kirtiman Singh and Mr. Pranav
                      Agrawal, Advocates.

                     versus
        AMIT RATHEE AND ORS                      ..... Respondent
                     Through    Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate for
                     Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate.

                                      W.P.(C) 8330/2016
        UOI AND ORS                                               ..... Petitioner
                                      Through    Mr. Kirtiman Singh and Mr. Pranav
                                      Agrawal, Advocates.
                                      versus

        GOVIND AND ORS                           ..... Respondent
                     Through    Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate for
                     Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        The Union of India has filed the present writ petition, impugning the

order dated 8.4.2016, whereby the OA filed by the respondents was

allowed, based on the decision rendered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the

Tribunal in OA No.478/2015 titled Kaustubha Devang Pandya & 7 Ors.

Versus Union of India & Ors. The impugned order, in fact, does not

contain any discussion on the contentions raised and the respective stand of

W.P. (C) Nos. 8311/2016 & 8330/2016                             Page 1 of 4
 the parties, except for quoting the operative portion of the decision of the

Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.478/2015.

2.      The Gujarat High Court, by its judgment dated 16.8.2016, has set

aside the order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in

Kaustubha Devang Pandya (supra).

3.      The order of the Gujarat High Court has been challenged in the

Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30550/2016, Monu Tomar Vs. Union of

India vide order dated 28.10.2016 leave to appeal has been granted. The

Supreme Court noticed 652 posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant

were required to be filled-up. 196 appellants were before the Supreme

Court and in the said circumstances, the Supreme Court had permitted the

authorities to fill-up the aforementioned posts, subject to the condition that

they shall not fill-up 196 posts.

4.      Learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has made a

statement that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside,

with an order of remand. He submits that the case of the respondents is

factually different and many of the said respondents had participated in the

examinations conducted outside the State of Gujarat. In some cases, the

examination papers and the dates, on which the examinations were held,

were different.

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contests the said

statement asserting dis-similarity and submits that the decision of the

W.P. (C) Nos. 8311/2016 & 8330/2016                    Page 2 of 4
 Gujarat High Court would fully and squarely apply to the case of the

respondents also. He also states that some of the respondents had, in fact,

participated in the examination conducted in the State of Gujarat.

6.      We would not like to examine the factual issue in each case/each

candidate and consequently whether or not, the matter would be fully

covered by the decision of the Gujarat High Court. Further, leave to appeal

has been granted against the said judgment, which is pending before the

Supreme Court.            We have passed the order of remit, for even if the

judgment of the Gujarat High Court is upheld, the contention raised by the

respondents may have to be considered.

7.      In the given facts, we would accept the statement made by the

learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order may be set

aside with an order of remand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set

aside, with an order on remand, without expressing any opinion on merits.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondents states that the interim

protection, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, should also be

granted till the matter is first heard by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the

Petitioners opposes the said prayer. He states that the respondents are not

parties to the special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. He further

states that 652 posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant, mentioned in

the order of the Supreme Court, relate to the State of Gujarat.

9.      We are inclined to repeat the order granted by the Supreme Court in

W.P. (C) Nos. 8311/2016 & 8330/2016                      Page 3 of 4
 the present writ petition also, for the simple reason that the case of the

respondents regarding interim protection cannot be differentiated from the

case of the candidates before the Supreme Court. This interim order, as

noticed above, will continue till the matter is first listed before the Tribunal

and thereafter the Tribunal can pass appropriate orders.

10.     The Tribunal will examine the contention of the petitioners that

some of the respondents had appeared in the examination conducted in the

State of Gujarat and also whether the decision of the High Court would be

squarely applicable to the candidates, who had appeared in the other states.

All contentions are left open.

        Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.1.2017.

        The writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. Pending

applications are also disposed of.



                                               SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

DECEMBER 21, 2016 NA W.P. (C) Nos. 8311/2016 & 8330/2016 Page 4 of 4