Delhi High Court
Sonia vs Delhi State Subordinate Service ... on 27 February, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1129/2017
Date of Decision : 27th February, 2017
SONIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate
versus
DELHI STATE SUBORDINATE SERVICE
SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, ASC with Ms.
Pratistha Vij, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
respondents, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated
23.09.2016 whereby O. A. No. 3502/2015 filed by the petitioner- Ms.
Sonia has been dismissed recording as under:-
"None appears on behalf of the applicant even on revised
call.
2. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that
the department has passed impugned order dated
08.07.2015 in compliance of this Tribunal's order dated
20.03.2015, the applicant was given an opportunity to
submit her representation which she did and after
W.P.(C) No.1129/2017 Page 1 of 3
examining her representation, it was rejected on the
ground that despite several opportunities and public
notice, the applicant had failed to fill up OARS form.
3. We therefore observe that this OA is not
maintainable at all and is dismissed in limine."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had
wrongly noted the next date of hearing in O. A. No. 3502/2015 as
27.09.2016, instead of 23.09.2016. It is pointed out that the petitioner
has filed another O.A. No.365/2016 in respect the same examination
seeking clarification of the post code which is still pending and is now
fixed for hearing on 02.05.2017. The contention is that the petitioner
was/is sanguinely interested in pursuing her claim.
3. As per the petitioner, she was unable to upload her photograph
and signature on the respondent's Website and accordingly download
her admit card. The petitioner had immediately approached the
Tribunal for relief. By an interim order admit card was issued. The
petitioner thereupon had appeared in the preliminary and main
examination and has qualified.
4. Dismissal of the original application without detailed scrutiny
and without hearing, means that the entire prolonged effort and
struggle would go in vain.
5. Keeping in view the reasons given by the petitioner for his non-
appearance on 23.09.2016 before the Tribunal in O.A. No.3502/2015
and after reflecting on the consequences as recorded above, we are
inclined to accept this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.1129/2017 Page 2 of 3
6. We had considered whether we could decided the entire
controversy without an order of remand, albeit noticing the factual
issues and matrix of the dispute, we are convinced that an order of
remand is necessary and required for a just and fair adjudication as
factual findings have to be recorded after possibly a detailed scrutiny
and verification exercise. If required and necessary the petitioner
may file an application for better particulars or details or the tribunal
may require the parties to furnish details and particulars.
7. We clarify that the counsel for respondent No.1 has not
conceded to this order being passed. We do feel that the petitioner
does deserve a chance and indulgence to establish her case. The
counsel for the petitioner has assured that he would attend all hearing
and not seek adjournment.
8. We also clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on
merits.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. To cut short
delay, it is directed that the parties will appear before the Tribunal on
20th March, 2017, when a date of hearing will be fixed. It is open to
the tribunal take up OA No. 3502/2015 along with O.A. No.
365/2016.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
FEBRUARY 27, 2017
b
