Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Ms.Poonam & Anr. on 1 August, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.8552/2010 & CM No. 21830/2010
% Date of Decision: 01.08.2011
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .... Petitioners
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum & Ms.Sana Ansari,
Advocates.
Versus
Ms. Poonam & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Mr. Raunak Jain, Advocate for
respondent No. 1
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for
MCD/respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
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 dated 8th July, 2010
passed in OA No. 1489/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench titled as 'Mrs. Poonam v. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board and Ors'.
The application of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal had
contended that she had completed two years diploma course in
Elementary Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as ETE) in the
month of May, 2005 at the age of 26 years. The result of ETE Diploma
Course was declared on 24th May, 2005.
The Tribunal by the impugned order had disposed of other
original applications of other candidates who were similarly placed as
the respondent no.1, being OA No. 498/2010 titled as 'Mrs. Suman
Lata Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.' & OA 751/2010 titled as
'Ms. Jyoti Dua and Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
and Ors'.
The Tribunal in the impugned order, relied on the directions
issued in Parul Dhingra's case dated 18th March, 2010 and directed the
petitioner to offer appointment to respondent No. 1 with all the
consequences on the premise that the decision of the Tribunal in Parul
Dhingra's case had become final and the said order was not challenged
in the writ petition filed against the said order.
The impugned order dated 8th July, 2010 deciding the original
applications, being OA No. 751/2010, titled as 'Ms. Jyoti Dua & Ors. v.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.', was challenged by
the petitioner in writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 8545/2010 titled as
'Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Ms. Jyoti Dua &
Ors'.
This Court, while considering the writ petition WP(C) No.
8545/2010 titled as 'DSSSB & Anr. v. Ms. Jyoti Dua and Ors.' had held
that the Tribunal's decision in Parul Dhingra's case was overruled by a
Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 2nd November, 2010 in
WP(C) No. 4677/2010 titled as 'DSSSB v. Parul Dhingra & Anr' and
consequently had remanded the matter of Ms. Jyoti Dua after reviving
her Original Application.
The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that the facts
of the present respondent No. 1, Mrs. Poonam, are similar to that of Ms.
Jyoti Dua, which writ petition being WP(C) No. 8545/2010 was decided
by this Court and the order dated 8th July, 2010 was set aside and the
original application was restored and the matter was remanded to the
Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not disputed
the facts that the case of Ms. Jyoti Dua was also decided by the order
dated 8th July, 2010, which order had been set aside by the High Court
in the writ petition WP(C) No. 8545/2010 titled as DSSSB & Anr. v. Ms.
Jyoti Dua and Ors. and the original application was restored and the
matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh the pleas and
contentions of the parties.
In the circumstances for the same reasons as were taken by the
High Court in writ petition WP(C) No. 8545/2010 titled as DSSSB &
Anr. v. Ms. Jyoti Dua and Ors., the same impugned order dated 8th
July, 2010 passed in OA 1489/2010 titled as 'Mrs. Poonam v. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.' is set aside and the said
original application of Mrs. Poonam, being O.A No. 1489 of 2010, is
restored and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to re-decide the
matter according to pleas and contentions of the parties and the various
decisions of this Court. The writ petition is disposed of with these
directions and the parties are left to bear their own costs. All the
pending applications are also disposed of.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19th
August, 2011.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 01, 2011
'rs'
