Delhi High Court
Indian Agricultural Research ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 9 August, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.2747/2001
% Date of Decision: 09.08.2011
Indian Agricultural Research Institute & Anr. .... Petitioners
Through Mr.Gagan Mathur, Advocate
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Nemo
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 petitioner has impugned the order dated 21st September,
2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in
OA No. 677/1998 titled as Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Indian Agriculture
Research Institute, whereby the original application filed by the
respondent No.2 was allowed in terms of the order dated 31st March,
1997 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.438/1997 titled as Dr. D.S.
Rana and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., whereby the Tribunal had
directed the petitioner to consider the applicants in OA No. 438/1997
for appropriate placement including appointment pursuant to a scheme
or for their absorption. The Tribunal had passed the order dated 21st
September, 2000 in the original application of the respondent No.2 on
the same terms and conditions and had directed regularization of the
respondent no.2 within two months.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order
dated 21st September, 2000 on the ground that the Tribunal has relied
on the order dated 31st March, 1997 passed in OA No. 438/1997, which
order was modified in Civil Writ Petition No. 3417/1997 titled as Indian
Agricultural Research Institute and Ors. Vs. Dr. D.S. Rana and Ors. by
order dated 9th July, 1999 holding that instead of regularizing the
services of Dr. D.S. Rana and others, the applicants in OA
No.438/1997, they would be considered for regularization against the
regular vacancy or post as and when they will occur in accordance with
the Rules and Guidelines of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended
that even order dated 9th July, 1999, modifying the order dated 31st
March, 1997 passed in OA No. 438/1997 titled Dr. D.S.Rana & ors Vs
Indian Agricultural Research Institute & Others was further modified in
CM No. 13141/1999 in CW No. 3417/1997 by order dated 20th October,
2000 holding that the applicants in the said OA shall be considered for
absorption as and when regular vacancy or post would occur. The
operative portion of order dated 20th October, 2000 reads as under:-
"As and when regular vacancy or post occurs,
respondent No.2 shall be considered against the
same as a separate block and not along with fresh
entrants on the basis of the record available to the
petitioner, in accordance with the rules and
guidelines of the petitioner."
Since the original application of the respondent no.2 was allowed
in terms of order dated 31st March, 1997 in OA No. 438/1997, which
was modified by order dated 9th July, 1999 and 20th October, 2000,
consequently it is contended that the impugned order passed on the
original application of the respondent no.2 is also liable to be modified
in terms of orders dated 9th July, 1999 and 20th October, 2000.
No one is present on behalf of the respondent no.2. Since the
original application of the respondent no.2 was decided based on the
order dated 31st March, 1997 in OA No. 438 of 1997, which order was
modified by order dated 9th July, 1999 and 20th October, 2000, the
impugned order dated 21st September, 2000 in OA 677/1998 is also
liable to be modified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the facts and circumstances of the respondent no.2 are
similar to the applicants in OA No. 438 of 1997 titled Dr.D.S.Rana &
ors Vs Indian Agricultural Research Institute & Others.
Therefore, for the forgoing reasons the impugned order dated 21st
September, 2000, especially para 4 of the said order giving directions to
the petitioner is also modified in terms of the order dated 9th July, 1999
and 20th October, 2000 passed in CW No. 3417/1997 titled as Indian
Agricultural Research Institute Vs. D.S. Rana & Ors., in this case also,
as and when regular vacancy or post occurs, respondent No.2 shall be
considered against the same as a separate block and not along with
fresh entrants on the basis of the record available to the petitioner, in
accordance with the rules and guidelines of the petitioner.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties are,
however, left to bear their own costs. All the pending applications are
also disposed of.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 09, 2011
„rs‟
