Delhi High Court
Nisha vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 21 September, 2015
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8874/2015
% Date of Judgment : 21.09.2015
NISHA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and Ms. Aarushi
Agarwal, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, ASC, GNCTD
with Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 19877/2015 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8874/2015 & CM APPL. 19878/2015 (Directions)
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 19.08.2015 by which the Tribunal has
directed the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner
within four weeks.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a
Guest Teacher for the term 2014-15 but when she applied for the next
term, her application was rejected based on a circular dated
09.07.2015. Counsel submits that since the petitioner had challenged
the aforesaid circular, no purpose would be achieved by directing the
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and the
matter would require hearing on merits. Counsel further submits that
in cases where the facts are not in dispute, the practice of remanding
the matter to the Executive for deciding a representation has not been
approved in a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Rahul Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in
2014 (2) SCT 824 Delhi. Para 12 of the judgment reads as under :
"Before proceeding further ahead we would failing noting
that large number of writ petitions filed before us are
evidencing that before remanding the matter, on questions
of fact and law, determinative findings are being recorded
by the Tribunal and thereafter the matter is remanded to
the Executive for decision afresh. This may be permissible
if the Executive has wrongly interpreted the law requiring
the Executive to re-apply the facts to the correct law as
expounded by the Tribunal. Likewise, a fact or a
circumstance may be opined to be relevant by the
Executive and said fact or circumstance has influenced the
decision. Upon the fact or the circumstance found to be
irrelevant the matter may be remanded to the Executive to
decide afresh after excluding the said fact or the
circumstance. But where the facts are not in dispute and
only a legal issue arises, the Tribunal ought not to remand
the matter for the reason no useful purpose would be
served to remand the matter. In any case, whenever a
matter is remanded, the reason for the remand must be
clearly brought out and if a legal point is debated, the
conclusion has to be clearly stated. What we are finding is
stray observations here and there with a remand. The
Executive is left guessing what to do."
5. Notice. Mr. Ghosh accepts notice.
6. With the consent of the parties, we dispose of this writ petition.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has challenged the
circular dated 09.07.2015 which would disentitle the petitioner for the
post of a Guest Teacher, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter
back to the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to hear the matter on
merits. Since the term of a Guest Teacher is 9 months, we request the
Tribunal to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. Parties to
appear before the Tribunal on 6th October, 2015.
7. The writ petition and pending application are disposed of. We make
it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter and the Tribunal would decide the O.A. unaffected by any
observation made in this order.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
sc
