Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Rajesh Tiwari on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17518 of 2021
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasad Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of
India), PTI Building, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
3. The Director General, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New
Delhi.
4. The Deputy Director of Administration, Directorate of Doordarshan,
Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
5. The Director, Doordarshan Kendra Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Tiwari Son of Sri Brijnandan Tiwary, resident of Village Narhi, P.O.
Narhi, Chandi, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh, CGC
For the Respondent/s: Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN)
Date : 03-11-2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has filed an undertaking to remove all
defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It
is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter be removed within one month hereof.
2. The present writ petition has been filed "for setting
aside the final order dated 02.12.2019 passed in
O.A./050/00582/2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Central
Patna High Court CWJC No.17518 of 2021 dt.03-11-2021
Administrative Tribunal, Patna has quashed Office Order dated
03.09.2014 and 20.07.2015 by which request of the Respondent for
regularization to the Post of Librarian/Library and Information
Assistant was denied."
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna has erred in
quashing the impugned orders having regard to the cases of other
persons said to be similarly placed and who did not also have the
requisite qualification at the time of initial engagement but they
have been regularized subsequently. It is submitted that those
persons had acquired requisite qualification within ten years of
their initial engagement, unlike the petitioners who acquired his
qualification much beyond the initial ten years since engagement.
4. On being requested, however, learned counsel for the
petitioners was unable to show that any specific plea has been
taken in the writ petition in this regard. Moreover, reference to
paragraph-17 of the writ petition does not also indicate that the
other such persons who had been regularized had acquired their
requisite qualification within ten years of their respective initial
appointments.
5. We also take note that the present writ petition has
been filed after considerable delay in September, 2021 questioning
the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna
dated 02.12.2019, i.e. after a delay of almost one year and ten
Patna High Court CWJC No.17518 of 2021 dt.03-11-2021
months without explaining the reasons for the delay. No pleading
has been pointed out in the writ petition in this regard.
6. The petitioners have therefore not made out a case for
interference with the impugned order of the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna passed in O.A./050/00582/2016
dated 02.12.2019.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
8. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are
removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by
the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1
hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice
of this Court.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Ibrar//- ( Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 03.11.2021
Transmission Date N.A.
