Yatendra Singh Meena & Ors. vs Delhi Subordinate Services ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 5865 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                           Date of Decision: 28.09.2012


+                              W.P.(C) 8198/2009


       YATENDRA SINGH MEENA & ORS.                            ..... Petitioners

                                     versus

       DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES
       SELECTION BOARD & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for R-1
                    Mr. Anooja Srivastava & Mr. Rahul Srivastava, Advocates for
                    R-2/MCD
                    Mr. Harshvardhan Singh & Mr. Arjun Bhardwaj, Advocate for
                    R-3/NDMC

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1. The matter had been heard in part. Today, counsel for the parties have brought to my notice, a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 606/2011 titled Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs. Shikha Arora, decided on 28th July, 2011, whereby it has been held that a matter, such as the instant one, wherein admittedly, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board is

only the recruiting agency as it is carrying out recruitments on behalf of MCD and NDMC, and notification in respect of both the latter entities have been admittedly issued, the matter would fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is contended therefore, that the matter is covered by the aforesaid decision in LPA No.606/2011.

2. It is also pointed out that the decision in the LPA was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP(C) ... CC No. 3268/2012, and was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 21.02.2012.

3. In that view of the matter, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. However, in keeping with the approach of the Division Bench in LPA No. 606/2011, here also, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an original application before the Tribunal, if so advised, within a period of six weeks from today, and in case an original application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, along with an application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal shall condone the delay of the petitioner as he was prosecuting his non-selection before this Court, and that period shall stand excluded.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

CM APPL. NO. 4917/2009 (for Stay)

5. In view of the orders passed in the main petition, the interim orders passed on 9th December, 2011 shall remain in force for a period of six weeks from today, and thereafter, shall stand vacated.

6. The application stands disposed off subject to the above order.

CM APPL. 12756/2011 (for Directions)

7. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, this application is rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 rd