Delhi High Court
Jagat Narayan vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 February, 2020
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 18th February, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 1760/2020
JAGAT NARAYAN ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.
Aakash Varma and Mr. Jatin Kapur,
Advocates for respondents No.1, 2
and 4/UOI.
Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Vibhuti
Tyagi and Mr. Tapasvi, Advocates for
respondent No.3/UPSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM.APPL 6142/2020(exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1760/2020
3. The present petition is directed against order dated 06.05.2019 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the 'Tribunal').
4. Pursuant to a notification issued in the Employment News of 8-14
January, 2011 for appointment of one Assistant Professor (History) in
the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, the petitioner herein, made an
application under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (SC). The
petitioner was selected initially on ad-hoc basis on 16.03.2012.
5. An OA bearing No.3757/2011 challenging the advertisement was filed
by one Mahesh Kumar Singh on the ground that since only one post of
Assistant Professor (History) was available, the respondents were not
justified in reserving it in favour of SC candidates. The present
petitioner was also impleaded as one of the respondents.
6. The OA was dismissed, which led to the filing of a writ petition bearing
No.W.P(C)7584/2015 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed
vide order dated 04.07.2017, holding that the respondents were not
justified in reserving the sole post in favour of SC candidates. The
advertisement as well as the consequential actions were set-aside and
the respondents were directed to hold fresh selection for the post.
7. Both the parties preferred SLPs against order dated 04.07.2017 of this
Court, which SLPs were dismissed by orders dated 23.10.2017 and
05.07.2018.
8. Consequent to the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)7584/2015, the
appointment of the petitioner herein was terminated with immediate
effect. This forced the petitioner to knock at the doors of justice, by
filing OA No.4235/2018 before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed
by order dated 06.05.2019; which dismissal has led to filing of the
present writ petition.
9. Ms. Mainee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior
to the termination, no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity
of hearing was granted to the petitioner.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their
contentions.
11. We are of the view that having regard to the judgment of this Court,
whereby the advertisement for the post and all consequential actions
were quashed, which judgment has attained finality, issuing a show
cause notice to the petitioner would have been a mere formality; and the
'useless formality' theory would come into play. Once the
advertisement and actions taken pursuant thereto had been quashed, no
purpose would have been solved in issuing a show cause notice to the
petitioner. After all, there was nothing for the petitioner to answer, since
the advertisement itself had been quashed for legal fallacies. The
petitioner was also unable to provide an answer as to what he would
have to say regarding the quashing of the advertisement itself. Counsel
for the petitioner however only urges that it was not the fault of the
petitioner. Be that as it may, we find no ground to entertain the present
petition.
12. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed in the year 2012 and has remained in service till 2018; and he
has now become overage. Therefore, the petitioner would make a
representation to the respondents for creating a supernumerary post to
accommodate the petitioner. Alternatively, she submits that if a fresh
advertisement is issued, age relaxation should be given to that extent for
the period 2012-2018.
13. As prayed, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation to
the respondents for creating a supernumerary post, which the
respondents would decide expeditiously in accordance with law. If
however, a fresh advertisement is issued, it is directed that the petitioner
be granted relaxation of age for the period between 2012 to 2018 when
he worked as Assistant Professor with the respondents.
14. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
pst
