Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Vikas on 20 February, 2025
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2236/2025 and CM APPLs. 10449-10450/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with
Mr. Vikrant Goyal, Ms. Shweta Shandilya
and Mr. Saksham Sethi, Advocates
versus
VIKAS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu
Niket and Ms. Unni, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 20.02.2025
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The order dated 20 May 2024 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA 1516/2024, under challenge in this
writ petition, at the instance of the Staff Selection Commission, reads
as under:
"In the instant OA, the applicant has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"i. Call for records of the case;
ii. Quash and set aside the order dated
29/01/2024 passed by Review Medical Board.
iii. Pass an order directing the Respondents to
constitute an independent Medical Board and to
conduct the medical examination of the applicant;
iv. Pass an order directing respondents to
appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.)
Male with all consequential benefits including
arrears, etc along with interest at GPF rates;
v. Award cost of the proceedings: and
vi. Pass any order/relief/direction (s) as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice in favour of the applicant."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit
that the issue raised in this OA stands concluded by the
decision of this Tribunal titled as Ravi Prakash vs. Staff
Selection Commission & Ors.1 decided on 14.05.2024.
3. For parity of reasons, we allow the present OA in
terms of the directions given in the aforesaid OA. However,
for the sake of the convenience, the directions given by the
Tribunal in Ravi Prakash (supra) case are reproduced
below:-
"4. In the conspectus of things, we find that the
facts in the present case and the ones in the
aforesaid OA are similar, in all fours. Accordingly,
the instant OA is also disposed of on the same
analogy. Respondents are hereby directed to comply
with the aforesaid directions (Teekaram Singh
Meena vs. SSC and Ors.2) within twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order."
4. In view of the above, this OA is also disposed of in
the light of aforesaid directions. No order as to costs."
2. Clearly, the order has been passed by consent between learned
Counsel for the parties that the case was covered by the earlier
decision rendered by the Tribunal in Ravi Prakash v Staff Selection
Commission.
3. Neither side can, therefore, claim to be aggrieved by the
Order dated 14 May 2024 in OA No. 1101/2024
2 Order dated 10 May 2024, OA No.519/2024
impugned order.
4. This writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2025/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
