Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dr. Virender Singh Lather vs The Secretary A.S.R.B. & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1430 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 1430 Del
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2011

Delhi High Court
Dr. Virender Singh Lather vs The Secretary A.S.R.B. & Anr. on 10 March, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) No. 10916/2005

%                                  Date of Decision: 10.03.2011

DR. VIRENDER SINGH LATHER                                ..... Petitioner
                    Through :            None

                     versus

THE SECRETARY A.S.R.B. & ANR.                          ..... Respondents
                    Through :            Mr. Gagan Mathur, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ? No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No

ANIL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2005

passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A.

No. 1339/2003 titled Dr. Virender Singh Lather vs. Agriculture

Scientists Recruitment Board & Ors. dismissing his application

seeking appointment to the post of Principal Scientist

(Genetics/Cytogenetics) IARI, New Delhi.

The Tribunal has held that the petitioner was in the scale of

`10,000-15,200/- and not in the scale of `12,000-18,300/- which was

the requirement of the respondent no. 1. The eligibility condition for

appointment to the post of Principal Scientist (Genetics/Cytogenetics)

IARI, New Delhi was three years in the scale of `12,000-18,300/- and

the petitioner was appointed to the scale of `16,400-22,400/- on

04.03.1998. The petitioner, thus, completed three years in the said

scale on 03.03.2001 whereas the last date for application for the said

post was 16.06.2000 and the interview was conducted on 23.07.2001.

According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the

petitioner ought to have had the eligibility condition as on date of the

application which he did not possess.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

MARCH 10, 2011 kks

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter