Delhi High Court
Sandeep Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 December, 2019
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 5th December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 3694/2019
SANDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Harpreet Singh with Ms. Suhani
Mathur, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr. Panel
Counsel with Mr. Himanshu Pathak,
G.P.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is directed against order dated 11.03.2019
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Contempt Petition
No.683/2018 filed in O.A. No.2953/2018.
2. With the consent of parties, the present writ petition is set-down for
final hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner had filed O.A. bearing No.2953/2018 seeking the
following reliefs, which was disposed of by an order dated 07.08.2018:
"a. Quash and set aside the impugned speaking order
dated 27.04.2018 passed by the respondent;
b. DIRECT the respondents to consider the candidature
of the applicant as per the merit and to recruit the
applicant for the said post, and
c. DIRECT the respondents to consider the candidature
of the applicant at par with the applicants in the case
of Sumit Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
and when the required qualification is fulfilled, as
proposed in the advertisement (as detailed in the
O.A.), passed/issued by the Respondents and/or keep
one seat vacant as per candidate's top preference in
the application form for the applicant till the final
disposal of the OA.
d. DIRECT the respondent to recruit the applicant as
per the top preferences made by the applicant in the
application form.
e. DIRECT the respondent, should any difficulty arise
in 2015, applicant may be recruited in year 2016 as
per his merit."
4. The petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil and
Structural) pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.07.2015 issued by the
Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Quantity Survey and Contract). He
appeared in the examination for Paper-I held on 31.01.2016 and cleared
the same. Consequently, he became eligible to sit for Paper-II of the
same examination held on 24.07.2016. He appeared in the Paper-II also
and cleared the same. However, vide order dated 25.01.2017 the
respondents rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner had not ticked the subject on the answer sheet.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, O.A. No.4340/2017 was
filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of vide order dated
08.12.2017 with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh
representation against the rejection of his candidature; and directing the
respondents to decide such representation. The non-compliance of order
dated 08.12.2017 led the petitioner to file a Contempt Petition
No.202/2018. Thereafter, the respondents passed order dated
27.04.2018 on the petitioner's representation against which the
petitioner filed O.A. No. 2953/2018, which was disposed of by an order
dated 07.08.2018, with the following directions:
"6. In this view of the matter, for the forgoing reasons,
the impugned order dated 27.4.2018 is quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and
speaking order on the representation of the applicant within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this Order."
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, admittedly a detailed, speaking
order dated 30.11.2018 has been passed by the respondents.
Consequently the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner was
disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2019, paragraphs 3 and 4 of which
order have been reproduced below:
"3. In view of the above, we find substantial compliance
with the order of this Tribunal. Hence, notice is
discharged and the CP is closed.
4. However, liberty is given to the applicant to
challenge the order now passed by the respondents, if
so advised, in accordance with law."
7. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main
reason for not considering the representation of the petitioner was that
the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India
& Ors. Vs. Sumit Kumar; W.P. (C) 4829/2017 and Union of India &
Anr. Vs. Avinash Chandra Singh & Ors.; W.P. (C) 6086/2017 have
been stayed by the Supreme Court. Attention of the court is drawn to
paragraph 19 of speaking order dated 30.11.2018, which we reproduce
below:
"19. Whereas, the effect of Order dated 10.08.2017 passed
in Sumit Kumar case by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
WP No.4829/2017 and its Order dated 29.08.2017 in
Avinash Chandra Singh & Ors. case in W.P. No. 6086/2017
was spreading to other Examinations of the Commission in
addition to JE Exam 2015, e.g. CGLE 2016 and CHSLE
2016 and was setting a dangerous precedence which
carried the potential to demolish/unsettle the entire Rule
position and the sanctity of the examinations and adversely
impacting the entire recruitment processes of the
Commission. Therefore, an SLP has been filed in the
Hon'ble Apex Court against the Judgment and Order
passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 10.08.2017 in the
case of Shri Sumit Kumar and the Hon'ble Apex Court has
stayed the said Order of High Court vide its order dated
23.07.2018. Copy of Apex Court Order dated 23.07.2018 is
enclosed as Annexure -I."
8. Mr. Singh contends that now however the Special Leave Petition (SLP)
against order dated 10.08.2017 passed in the case of Sumit Kumar
(supra) stands dismissed by an order dated 22.11.2019; and the
respondents are therefore bound to give effect to the directions passed
in the case of Sumit Kumar (supra) and Avinash Chandra (supra)
since these cases cover the case of the petitioner as well.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents however submits that
there is no infirmity in order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Tribunal
since in compliance with the directions contained in order dated
07.08.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the representation of the petitioner
stands decided. He further submits that the stay orders granted by the
Supreme Court was only one of the reasons for rejecting the
representation of the petitioner, alongwith the other reasons as stated in
paragraphs 13 to 17 of the speaking order, which reasons also cannot be
faulted.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have given our
thoughtful consideration to the matter.
11. The Contempt Petition was disposed of by the Tribunal by observing
that there was substantial compliance with order dated 07.08.2018; and
counsel for the respondent is correct to that extent that there is no
infirmity in the order so passed by the Tribunal. However, this court
cannot lose track of the fact that in paras 19 to 21 of the speaking order,
the respondents had taken note of the fact that Supreme Court had
stayed the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sumit
Kumar (supra) and Avinash Chandra (supra); which stay orders have
since been vacated upon dismissal of the SLPs; and the effect of such
vacation cannot be ignored.
12. Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to reconsider order dated 30.11.2018 passed by them in the
light of the fact that the SLPs filed by Union of India wherein
judgments of Delhi High Court in Sumit Kumar (supra) and Avinash
Chandra (supra) were stayed, now stand dismissed.
13. Let a speaking order on reconsideration of the aforesaid be passed
within a period of six weeks from today.
14. The writ petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in
the above terms.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
DECEMBER 05, 2019
ck
