Delhi High Court
Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 July, 2018
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17th July, 2018
+ LPA 373/2018
ASHWIN JAWAHARLAL MEHTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Nikunj Dayal and Mr Shubham
Arya, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Jaswant Rai Aggarwal with
Ms Satvika Goyal, Advs for R-1&2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has
been disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ
petition was decided on the first date of hearing without issuing notice in the
matter and without respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being represented in Court. It
is further submitted that the primary relief is sought against the respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has raised
serious questions with regard to the rights of persons with disabilities. In
this case, the son of the appellant is a disabled person with hearing
impairment. For the sake of convenience he shall be referred to as the
appellant. The appellant has been appearing in the Graduate Aptitude Test in
Engineering (GATE) Examination for the past five years and he has cleared
the examination on four occasions but has not been finally successful on all
four occasions, and has fallen short of the composite score which is required
for qualifying the post which is comprised of a written examination,
interview, group discussion and group task. He submits that as of today
there are 100 vacancies for the disabled out of which 90 vacancies are
backlogs. It is alleged that the entire procedure which is being followed is
not disabled friendly, to say the least, an impression is created that the
beneficial piece of legislation is not being adhered to and there is a
systematic attempt to keep the persons with disabilities out of the jobs which
are available.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. We find that the appellant has raised serious questions which require
consideration and a response from respondent No. 3/IOC and respondent No.
4/ONGC would be necessary to examine the allegations which have been
made in the writ petition. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the matter, lest prejudice be caused to the rights of any of the parties
especially respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were neither represented before the
learned Single Judge nor represented before Court today, although we are
informed that advance copies were supplied to them, we are of the view that
the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter be remanded back
for fresh hearing, after issuance of notice to all the respondents and upon
receipt of a response from them.
5. Accordingly, the order dated 20.04.2018 is set aside. Matter is
remanded back to the learned Single Judge. Parties to appear before the
learned Single Judge on 13.08.2018. Counsel for the appellant will bring to
the notice of all the respondents the order passed by this Court today. We
make it clear that all legal objections of the respondents are kept open.
6. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 17, 2018
SU
