Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Deepak Kumar Rana on 23 October, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14888/2024 & CM APPL. 62451/2024
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Garima Sachdeva, SPC
with Ms. Divyanshi Maurya, Adv.
versus
DEEPAK KUMAR RANA .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 23.10.2024
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The impugned order passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal 1 reads thus:
"The applicant had applied against the Advertisement No. Phase-
X/2022/Selection Post issued on 12.05.2022 by the Staff Selection
Commission, i.e. Respondent No. 2. The OA is filed seeking the
following relief:
i) To quash and set aside the impugned Letter No.
07/62/2022 dated September 2023 (A-1) to the extent the
name of applicant has not been included in the said letter/
list and direct respondents to include the name of applicant
in the said list of shortlisted candidates circulated vide
Letter No. 07/62/2022 dated September 2023 and appoint
him to the post of Section Officer (Horticulture), Post
Code NRI 7522 advertisement Phase- X/2022 with all
consequential benefits.
ii) To declare that action of respondents in
ignoring the candidature of applicant for appointment to
the post of Section Officer (Horticulture), Post Code NRI
7522 advertisement Phase-X/2022 as illegal and arbitrary
"the learned Tribunal", hereinafter
and issue appropriate directions for appointment of
applicant to the said post of Section Officer (Horticulture),
Post Code NRI 7522 advertisement Phase- X/2022 with all
consequential benefits.
iii) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
iv) Any other orders may also be passed as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that during
the pendency of this OA, the candidature of the applicant has been
accepted by the respondents and since then, the applicant has been
declared selected by the respondents. Consequently, he was called
for Document Verification on 26.12.2023. He states that post the
Document Verification the respondents shall take the candidature
of the applicant to its logical conclusion and the OA can be decided
by giving a time bound direction to the respondents to complete
this exercise.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the
candidature of the applicant was withheld as he had not provided
the necessary document/documents. However, since subsequently
he has provided the same, he has already been called for Document
Verification on the above mentioned date.
3. In view of what has been transpired and recorded
above, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents
that the candidature of the applicant shall be taken to its logical
conclusion within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order and the offer of appointment be
extended to the applicant consequently as per rules. The applicant
would be entitled to notional benefits pursuant to his selection.
4. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. A bare reading of the impugned order reveals that the order has
been passed in terms of the statement made by learned Counsel for the
petitioners as recorded in para 2 of the impugned order.
3. Ms. Sachdeva, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the order has been passed because the petitioners were not properly
represented.
4. This Court is inundated with petitions challenging the orders
passed by the learned Tribunal. We sincerely doubt whether, when
the Supreme Court passed the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v
UOI 2, it ever envisioned that against orders such as the one which is
under challenge in the present case, writ petitions would be filed.
5. Even as of today, we have a list of nearly 100 matters.
6. We are constrained to impose nominal costs in this matter, in
order to convey the message that such challenges would not be easily
tolerated.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order being an order
passed on consent on the basis of statement made by learned Counsel
for the petitioners, cannot be challenged.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be paid by way of cross-cheque favouring the Delhi
High Court Legal Services Committee, to be deposited with the
Registry of this Court within two weeks from today.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 23, 2024/N
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
(1997) 3 SCC 261
