Sh.Pushpender vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1975 Del

*              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

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