Rinku Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 115 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of decision: January 8, 2013

+                           W.P.(C) 100/2013

      RINKU KUMAR                                         ..... Petitioner
                            Represented by:    Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
                   versus

      GOVT. OF NCTD AND ORS                    ..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Advocate for R.1 to R.3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J (Oral)

CM No.217/2013 Allowed; subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) 100/2013

1. This is the third cryptic order we have noticed today being passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal resulting in the matter being remanded. The Central Administrative Tribunal is the first fora where facts have to be noted and if there are rival versions, with reference to the record the correct facts have to be penned. Thereafter, the principle of law which is attracted for adjudication, if one arises, has to be noted followed by rival contentions noted and a reasoned decision taken.

2. It is regretful that the Tribunal is not following the aforesaid course which has to be adopted by fora of first adjudication.

3. In the instant case the grievance of the writ petitioner before the Tribunal, as an applicant before the Tribunal, was of being deprived the

opportunity to participate at the Typing Test which was held between November 20, 2012 to November 22, 2012.

4. Without calling for a para-wise reply to the O.A., by looking into the records of the respondent, the Tribunal has decided the O.A. We are not to be understood to mean that in every case reply should be called for, for if the fact based dispute can be resolved best by calling for the record, it would be perfectly justifiable to do so. But, in such circumstances, the record produced must be clearly noted and recorded in the decision and not in the manner as has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the impugned decision dated December 10, 2012.

5. Reverting back to the facts, with reference to the grievance of the writ petitioner that he was denied the opportunity to take the Typing Test held between November 20, 2012 and November 22, 2012, the Tribunal has noted that the despatch register was produced by the respondents and the Tribunal was satisfied, with reference thereto, that intimation was sent to all candidates of the Typing Test being held on the dates between November 20, 2012 to November 22, 2012; the intimation was sent on November 02, 2012.

6. To anyone who reads the impugned order an impression would be conveyed that to all the candidates the intimation was sent and said fact was evidenced by entries in the dispatch register.

7. But what do we find?

8. The composite entry is as under:-

              "4775               All candidates
               /                  of HC AWO/TPO"

9. Suffice would it be to state that 6305 - 4775 = 1530.

10. Now, where is the proof, if the despatch register is the document, that

1530 postal dockets having correct names and addresses were dispatched. It is obvious that the despatch officer of the respondent has done a shoddy job. It is regretful that even the Central Administrative Tribunal has done a shoddy job. It was the duty of the Tribunal to have gone deeper to find out whether or not the call letters were actually despatched.

11. The Tribunal has also noted, on oral assertions made by the respondents, that the information was uploaded on the website.

12. Where is the proof?

13. No reference has been made by the Tribunal.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even with respect to said aspect of the matter there was a controversy. The respondents told the Tribunal that since the Test was outsourced, it was the Agency concerned which had on its website indicated the name and roll number of the candidate and the date on which the candidate had to appear at a particular centre to take the Typing Test. Counsel urges how would the candidates know of said fact until and unless on the website of Delhi Police it was so indicated i.e. that the candidates who clicked on the website of the Delhi Police would be, through hyper linking, led to the website of the Agency concerned.

15. Besides, counsel urges before us where was the proof that the Agency concerned had uploaded the information on their website of the date and the place where the test would be held. Nothing has been penned by the Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, we are constrained to dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated December 10, 2012 and as a result O.A.No.4118/2012 is restored for fresh adjudication before the Tribunal.

17. It is hoped and expected that issues of law and fact which arise for consideration are noted properly and adjudicated upon.

18. Parties shall appear before the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal on January 21, 2013. The Registrar would list the matter before an appropriate Bench.

19. Copy of this order be supplied „DASTI‟ to learned counsel for the parties and the Registry would sent a copy there of through Special Despatch Messenger so as to be available with the Registry of the Tribunal latest by January 14, 2013 to enable the Registrar to locate the file of O.A. No.4118/2012 well in time.

CM No.216/2013 Since the writ petition has been disposed of the instant application seeking direction to keep one post vacant in Delhi Police till the disposal of the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE

JANUARY 08, 2013//skb//