Delhi High Court
Aman Kaushik vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 July, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 20th July, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 6227/2016
AMAN KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Anil Panwar, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM.APPL 25451/2016(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6227/2016
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.04.2016 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as
'the Tribunal') by which the prayer made for interim relief by the
petitioner stands declined.
4. The necessary facts as per the petition are that the petitioner had applied
for the post of an Examiner with the respondent no.3 after it advertised
certain vacancies and invited applications for the filling up of the same.
The said examination was conducted by the respondent no.2 which
subsequently published the list of selected candidates as well as the
marks obtained by all the candidates including the petitioner herein. At
the time of the advertisement of the vacancies, it had been clearly spelt
out that the vacancies under the Physically Handicapped category or the
PWD category were to be filled as per the guidelines/rules framed by the
respondent no.1 herein. The petitioner was, however, shocked to learn at
a later stage that the petitioner despite having scored an excess of 62
marks over the last selected candidate under the PWD category has not
been included in the list of the finally selected candidates. The petitioner
was again shocked by the revelation that the respondent no.2 while
admitting to the fact of the respondent no.1's rules providing for an
equal representation of all the categories within the PWD category, the
respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 conveniently ignored the guidelines
of the respondent no.1 and selected only three candidates from the (OH)
category and six candidates each from the (VH) and (HH) category
whereas they were to selected five candidates each from the above
mentioned three categories. Feeling aggrieved by the act of the
respondents, the petitioner preferred an OA before the Tribunal
challenging the merit list dated 21.01.2016 published by respondent no.2
incorporating the arbitrary, illegal and patently unlawful decision of the
respondent no.3 in contravention of the guidelines laid down by
respondent no.1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has failed to
take into consideration that in case the interim protection is not granted,
the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. He further submits that the
petitioner has a strong prima facie case on merits.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be noticed
that the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief was declined on
19.04.2016. However, the present writ petition has been filed on
14.07.2016. The Tribunal had declined the prayer for interim relief
firstly on the ground that counsel for the respondent had informed the
Tribunal that all the persons stand selected and appointment letters have
been issued and they are undergoing training from 11.04.2016 onwards.
The second ground on which the prayer was declined is that the
successful persons have not been made parties.
7. Though, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as
an interim order at this stage would affect the rights of the successful
candidates who have not been impleaded as parties. However, counsel
for the petitioner submits that he could not implead the successful
candidates as parties as he did not have the names and addresses. Let the
respondent provide names and addresses of the successful candidates to
the petitioner within one week. In case the successful candidates are
impleaded as parties and the petitioner prays for interim relief, the
Tribunal will consider the same in accordance with law.
8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
JULY 20, 2016
pst
