Delhi High Court
Suresh Chand vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 October, 2019
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 10th October, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 10808/2019
SURESH CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. U. Srivastava, proxy counsel with
Mr. Anoop Kumar, Advocates for Mr.
M.K. Gaur, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt.
Counsel for R-1/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL 44661/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10808/2019
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by
two orders dated 11.09.2019 and 26.09.2019 passed by learned Central
Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal').
4. Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had laid challenge to an order dated 11.09.2019
passed by the respondents by which the services of the petitioner were
terminated on account of his not fulfilling one of three essential
conditions of recruitment, more particularly condition No.3, which read
as under :
"As per Recruitment Notice of Paramedical and Nursing
Staff for ESIC Medical College/Hospitals in Haryana
Region advertised in December 2015, point C(a) eligibility:
Educational &Other Qualification and Age limit for the
advertised posts, the following were the essential conditions
for Ayurvedic Pharmacist (post code 7):
1) Matriculation or equivalent qualification from
recognised Board.
2) Diploma in Ayurvedic from a recognised
institution.
3) Three years' experience in Ayurvedic Pharmacy in
a recognised institute/hospital after duly registered
under pharmacy Act,1948."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that three years' experience
certificate was obtained by the petitioner from Patanjali Ayurved
Hospital, a copy of which has been filed alongwith this petition. He
further submits that the petitioner has also raised other grounds, which
would show that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The grievance of the petitioner before us is firstly that when the matter
was listed before the learned Tribunal, the following order was passed :
"CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
ORDER SHEET
26/09/2019
O.A./100/2874/2019
SURESH CHAND
-V/S-
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
ITEM N0:2
FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. : Dr. Swati Jindal Garg
FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. :
Notes of The Order of The Tribunal
Registry
Heard Learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the Respondents.
List the matter before Principal
Registrar's Court for completion of
pleadings on 06.12.2019.
(ARADHANA JOHRI) (R.N. SINGH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
whereby, on the last date i.e. 26.09.2019, only notice was issued
and the prayer for interim relief was not considered nor was an early
date prior to the completion of one month granted and the matter was
simply placed before the Principal Registrar for completion of
pleadings on 06.12.2019.
7. Mr. Srivastava further submits that the petitioner thereafter filed an
M.A., which was listed on 07.10.2019 and without even issuing notice,
the same was adjourned to 08.11.2019 with the following order :
"CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
ORDER SHEET
07/10/2019
M.A./100/3254/2019
O.A./100/2874/2019
SURESH CHAND
-V/S-
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
ITEM N0:101
FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. : Dr. Swati Jindal Garg along
with Mr. Mahavir Singh
FOR RESPONDENTS(S) Adv. : Mr. Shobhit Kumar
for Mr. Murari Kumar
Notes of The Order of The Tribunal
Registry
Learned proxy counsel for the
respondents prays for time.
Call on 08.11.2019.
(PRADEEP KUMAR) (SN TERDAL)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal
has not allowed the petitioner to address arguments and bring to the
notice of the Tribunal that by not granting any interim relief, the O.A.
would be rendered infructuous. In these circumstances learned counsel
seeks a direction to the Tribunal for expeditious hearing of the
application seeking interim relief. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner has no other source of livelihood and he is the only bread
winner of his family.
9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. Having regard to the
submissions so made, we find it somewhat strange that the learned
Tribunal has on the first date of hearing simply adjourned the matter to
a date beyond the one month period contained in the order of
termination, when the termination would become effective. The M.A.
seeking urgent relief was also not entertained, which is evident from the
fact that even notice has not been issued and simply at the asking of the
proxy counsel for the respondent, the matter has been adjourned to
08.11.2019.
10. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to file reply to the M.A. before
the next date of hearing. The Tribunal will hear the application seeking
interim relief on 08.11.2019, the date already fixed.
11. Copy of this order will be served upon all the respondents for filing
reply.
12. We make it clear that in case no reply is filed, the matter would be
heard in the absence of reply.
13. Record will be produced before the Tribunal on 08.11.2019.
14. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPL44660/2019 (stay)
15. Parties are directed to maintain status-quo in the meantime.
16. The application stands disposed of.
17. Copy of order be given dasti to the parties under signature of the Court
Master.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
OCTOBER 10, 2019/ck
