Kailash Chander & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1826 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               W.P.(C) No.13245-60/2005

%                             Date of Decision: 29.03.2011

Kailash Chander & Ors.                                       ......Petitioners

                           Through   Nemo

                                      Versus

UOI & Ors.                                              ...... Respondents

                           Through   Nemo


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

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may                  NO
       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 had contended before the Tribunal that for

Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short LDCE) for the

post of Section Officer of CSS, Stenographer (Grade 'A' and 'B') of

Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service were eligible. It was also

contended that whereas Assistants of CSS were eligible to appear in the

LDCE only for the posts of Section Officer, however, Stenographers

Grade 'C' of CSSS were eligible to appear for both the posts of Section

Officer and Stenographer Grade 'A' and 'B'.

The petitioner, therefore, sought the direction to the respondents

to defer the decision on the stoppage of lateral entry of officers of

Stenographers Service into CSS as the same was alleged to be illegal,

arbitrary and malafide. They also sought direction to the respondents

to accept the recommendations and to declare the additional 638 posts

created in pursuance of the recommendations of the Expert Committee

to reduce/remove stagnation in the Assistant Grade in CSS.

The Tribunal, while disposing of the writ petition, had held that

matter was governed by statutory rules, since the rules had not been

amended, therefore, the recommendations could not be enforced

through the order of the Tribunal till the recommendations are

translated into a right by amending the rules. With these observations,

the Tribunal dismissed the original application of the petitioners.

On 10th July, 2007, the petitioner had sought an adjournment to

discuss about further prosecution of the writ petition with his counsel.

No one is present today.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.

All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MARCH 29, 2011. VEENA BIRBAL, J.

'rs'