Delhi High Court
Union Public Service Commission vs R. Rj R Kasibhatla & Anr on 8 September, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~14 & 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment : 08.09.2015
+ W.P.(C) 3941/2015 & C. M. APPL Nos. 7042/2015 & 17442/2015
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate.
Versus
RAJVEER SINGH VERMA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Saqib, Advocate
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Mr. Kirtiman
Singh, CGSC with Ms. Natasha
Thakur and Ms. Rajul Jain, Advocates
for UOI.
Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate for
Intervener.
+ W.P.(C) 3947/2015 & C. M. APPL. Nos. 7050/2015 & 17922/2015
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Girish Pande, Advocate.
Versus
R. RJ R KASIBHATLA & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Saqib, Advocate
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Mr. Kirtiman
Singh, CGSC with Ms. Natasha
Thakur and Ms. Rajul Jain, Advocates
for UOI.
Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate for
Intervener.
W.P.(C) 3941/2015 Page 1 of 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 3941/2015 & C. M. APPL. 7042/2015 (Stay)
W.P.(C) 3947/2015 & C. M. APPL. 7050/2015 (Stay)
1. Challenge in these writ petitions is to a common order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.02.2015. The tribunal was
persuaded to decide two OAs which were filed bearing nos. 693/2014
& 224/2014. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, Paras 5 and 6 of the order passed by the
CAT reads as under :
"5. OA Nos. was 693/2014 and 224/2014 were heard
today. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel argued
for the applicants while Mr. J. B. Mudgil argued
on behalf of respondent - UPSC in both the OAs,
while Mr. Rajesh Katyal, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 argued in OA No. 693/2014.
During the arguments, it appeared that a short
listing criteria was adopted by the UPSC in
consonance with the provisions contained in the
Notification that was issued for examination.
According, to the short listing criteria none of
those who had been short listed, succeeded in the
interview. On the other hand, the applicants in
these two OAs, who had not been short listed, were
selected in the interview. Mr. J. B. Mudgil,
counsel for the respondent No. 1 admitted that the
present applicants in these two OAs fulfil all other
requirements of the post, including educational
qualification as per the Recruitment Rules.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Mr. Katyal
stated that he would have no other arguments to
make except to the extent that the applicants in the
OAs are fit for consideration in terms of the
recruitment rules for the post."
2. Today in the writ petitions a diametrically opposite stand is sought to
be taken by learned counsel for the petitioner based on the counter
affidavit filed before the tribunal. Although we have heard the matter
at some length, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the
following agreed order :
(i) The writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed at this stage leaving all
legal grounds open to the parties.
(ii) The petitioner may file an application seeking the review of the order
dated 25.02.2015. In case the review petition is filed within two
weeks, the respondents would not raise the plea of limitation.
(iii) The order passed by the tribunal would remain suspended till the
application for review is heard.
(iv) Both the writ petitions are disposed of. The tribunal would endeavour
to dispose of the review application within a period of one month.
C. M. APPL. 17442/2015 (Intervention) in W.P.(C) 3941/2015
C. M. APPL. 17922/2015 (Intervention) in W.P.(C) 3947/2015
3. Applications are dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015/sc
