Delhi High Court
Cpl Ranjeet Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 May, 2016
$~8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2020/2016 and CM APPL. 8730/2016
CPL RANJEET KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Bharathi Raju, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 19.05.2016
1. Vide order dated 09.03.2016, at the time of issuing notice in the
present petition, the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit
specifically stating inter alia as to whether they had received the petitioner's
representation dated 05.11.2015 and if so, whether they had passed an order
on his pending application dated 26.02.2016, for seeking discharge on
selection to a Group 'A' Civil Post, in terms of the Signal dated 23.07.2015.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Counsel for the
respondents hands over a copy of the order dated 19.04.2016, issued by the
Competent Authority, disposing of the petitioner's application dated
26.02.2016, seeking ex-post facto discharge on selection. As per the
aforesaid order, the petitioner's request for discharge has been turned down.
3. Counsel for the respondents states that it had been specifically stated
in the counter affidavit that the present petition is premature inasmuch as the
petitioner's application dated 26.02.2016 for seeking ex-post facto NOC was
still pending when he had elected to file the present petition on 08.03.2016.
She adds that contrary to the submission made by the other side on 9.3.2016,
the respondents had not received any representation dated 05.11.2015 from
the petitioner for seeking NOC.
4. A fresh cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioner in view
of the order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the Competent Authority, declining
the petitioner's request for discharge from service on selection to a Civil
Post. It is therefore deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition
with liberty granted to the petitioner to assail the said order, if so advised, in
accordance with law.
5. Counsel for the petitioner states that an interim order dated
09.03.2016 was passed in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondent
No.5 to reserve one post of an Officer in the Junior Management Scale-I for
him, which has been continuing to operate till date. He submits that he may
be granted one week's time to file a fresh petition and till then, the aforesaid
order may be continued.
6. It is deemed appropriate to continue the order dated 09.03.2016 for a
period of one week reckoned from today. If the petitioner does not file a
fresh petition within one week, then the said order shall automatically lapse.
7. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 19, 2016
rkb/mk
