Gajendra Singh vs Public Enterprise Selection ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6436 Del

$~1.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 7576/2014 and CM APPL. 17868-17869/2014
       GAJENDRA SINGH                            ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate with
                     Mr. Anand Srivastava and Mr. Kshitij Khera,
                     Advocates

                            versus
s
       PUBLIC ENTERPRISE SELECTION BOARD & ORS..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate
                      with Mr. Ankit Jain, Ms. Sara Sundaram and
                      Ms. Chitra Sharma, Advocates for R-2/GAIL.
                      Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra,
                      Advocate for R-3/UOI.
                      Mr. Bhupender Chauhan, Advocate for R-4.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                            ORDER

% 03.12.2014

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for

issuing a writ of certiorari, for quashing the appointment of the

respondent No.4 as the Director (Business Development) in the

respondent No.2/GAIL and further, for directing the respondent

No.1/PESB and the respondent No.2/GAIL to adopt the

recommendations made by the National Commission for Scheduled

Tribes (initially impleaded as respondent No.5 in the memo of parties).

2. On the last date of hearing, the petitioner had sought time to

amend the memo of parties by impleading Mr. Sanjib Datta as the

respondent No.4 and deleting the National Commission for Scheduled

Tribes as the respondent No.5. The amended memo of parties has

been filed.

3. In the course of arguments, it transpires that till date, the ACC

has not acted on the recommendation received by it for making an

appointment to the post of Director((Business Development), GAIL,

which is a Group A Board Level post. It therefore appears that the

present petition is premature.

4. After addressing arguments at some length, Mr. Sharma,

learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present

petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the

Court in future if he is aggrieved by the appointment made to the post

of Director (Business Development) in the respondent No.2/GAIL, and

take all the grounds that may be available to him at that stage, both

on facts and in law, including those raised in the present petition.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is dismissed as

withdrawn alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J DECEMBER 03, 2014 rkb