Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr vs Dr. Manish Gupta And Ors on 22 September, 2015
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9121/2015
% Date of Judgment : 22.09.2015
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Saurabh Chaddha, Advocate.
versus
DR. MANISH GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 20739/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9121/2015
3. By the present petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated
03.02.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. The respondents pursuant to an advertisement published by the
petitioner in the years 2012-13 applied for the post of Senior Resident
on ad-hoc basis. The advertisement was made keeping in view the
emergent situation. The ad-hoc Senior Residents were offered the
post for 89 days or till such date the regular appointments were made
after following the due procedure. The respondents herein applied on
different dates. Respondent no. 1 was appointed on 13.09.2012,
respondent no. 2 was appointed on 23.08.2013, respondent no. 3 was
appointed on 26.08.2013 while respondent no. 4 was appointed on
27.01.2014. Subsequently, the petitioners herein issued an
advertisement for appointments to the post of Senior Resident on
regular basis on 23.12.2014. 121 candidates applied for the five
posts. Meanwhile, fearing that the ad-hoc appointments made in
favour of the respondents would be terminated, the respondents
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal has allowed the OA and protected the appointments of
the respondents primarily on the ground that the respondent no. 1 has
completed 2 ½ years as on 03.02.2015, the respondent no. 2 & 3 have
completed 1 ½ years while respondent no. 4 has completed 1 year.
Even after the passing of the order, more than six months have passed.
In effect, the respondent no. 1, we are informed, has completed his
entire tenure. We find no reasons to interfere with the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal except that counsel for the
petitioner submits that this court must clarify that the order would not
be treated as a precedent. We have no hesitation in saying so. In
view of the fact that one of the respondents has completed 3 years and
other respondents have also spent considerable time on ad-hoc basis
and in case they are not allowed to complete three years, the
substantial time spent by them would go a waste, the petition stands
disposed of in above terms.
6. It would be open for the petitioner to declare the result and fill the
unfilled seats in accordance with law.
CM APPL. 20738/2015 (Stay)
7. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the application is
rendered infructuous.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
sc
