Full Text
Translation output
$-10, II, 12 & 13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 181/2015
JYOTI SINGH
Through: Mr.Ajesh Luthra, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 181/2015
JYOTI SINGH
Through: Mr.Ajesh Luthra, Advocate.
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION &ANR Respondents
Through: Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOI.
Mr.Pradeep Desodia, Advocatefor R-2/Delhi Police.
Through: Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOI.
Mr.Pradeep Desodia, Advocatefor R-2/Delhi Police.
AND
W.P.(C) 188/2015
LOKESHAHLAWAT
Petitioner
LOKESHAHLAWAT
Petitioner
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR Respondent
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/SSC.
Mr.Pradeep Desodia, Advocate for R-2/Delhi Police.
AND
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/SSC.
Mr.Pradeep Desodia, Advocate for R-2/Delhi Police.
AND
W.P.(C) 208/2015
YOGESH KUMAR
YOGESH KUMAR
VERSUS
2015:DHC:11811-DB , Respondent
Through; Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/SSC .
Mr.R.S.MaIikfor Mr.Amitabh Marwah, Advocate.
AND
Through; Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/SSC .
Mr.R.S.MaIikfor Mr.Amitabh Marwah, Advocate.
AND
W.P.(C) 213/2015
SANGEETA & ANR _ Petitioners
SANGEETA & ANR _ Petitioners
VERSUS
Respondents
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/SSC.
Mr.R.S.Malik for Mr.Amitabh Marwah, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/SSC.
Mr.R.S.Malik for Mr.Amitabh Marwah, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
09.01.2015 By this batch of writ petitions filed on behalf ofthe petitioners, the limited grievance raised by these petitioners is that the tribunal has dismissed the respective O.As filed by these petitioners due to the lack ofits jurisdiction without deciding the merits oftheir respective cases.
Mr.Ajesh Luthra, counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the two decisions of this Court in the case of
Ravinder Kumar &Ors. vs. StaffSelection Commission dated 31.10.2014 in WP(C) No.7356/2014 and other decision in the case ofAshish Chauhan and Ors. Vs. StaffSelection Commission and Am. dated 28.11.2014 in
WP(C) No.7757/2014 wherein two Division Benches of this Court have taken a view that the CAT would have the jurisdiction to entertain those matters where Delhi Police happens to be one ofthe organizations catered to in the recruitment process and the petitioners having applied to seek appointment to Delhi Police as well besides giving their preference for other
Paramilitary forces.
We find force in the submission ofcounsel for the petitioner. In these matters also, the Staff Selection Commission is the recruiting body and these petitioners are seeking their employment for the post of Sub
Inspectors in Delhi Police and also in paramilitary forces and at this stage even the petitioners are not aware as where ultimately they will find their selection, ifatall they succeed to get their appointments.
Undeniably, Delhi Police happens to beone ofthebodies where these j petitioners have given their options and, therefore, we reiterate our view that in all such matters, the CAT would have jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. By mere fact that some of the bodies, as in the present case, like paramilitary forces CAT cannot exercise jurisdiction that by itself would not come in the way of the CAT to exercise its jurisdiction when for other organizations jurisdiction vests with the CAT under Section 2(A) ofthe Act.
In the light of the above position, we remand back all these matters to the learned CAT and the learned CAT would entertain these petitions and adjudicate uponon their respective merits in accordance with law.
Parties shall appear before the learned CAT on 16.01.2015.
Writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
A
JANUARY 09, 2015
•dc'
KAILASH GAMBfflR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
09.01.2015 By this batch of writ petitions filed on behalf ofthe petitioners, the limited grievance raised by these petitioners is that the tribunal has dismissed the respective O.As filed by these petitioners due to the lack ofits jurisdiction without deciding the merits oftheir respective cases.
Mr.Ajesh Luthra, counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the two decisions of this Court in the case of
Ravinder Kumar &Ors. vs. StaffSelection Commission dated 31.10.2014 in WP(C) No.7356/2014 and other decision in the case ofAshish Chauhan and Ors. Vs. StaffSelection Commission and Am. dated 28.11.2014 in
WP(C) No.7757/2014 wherein two Division Benches of this Court have taken a view that the CAT would have the jurisdiction to entertain those matters where Delhi Police happens to be one ofthe organizations catered to in the recruitment process and the petitioners having applied to seek appointment to Delhi Police as well besides giving their preference for other
Paramilitary forces.
We find force in the submission ofcounsel for the petitioner. In these matters also, the Staff Selection Commission is the recruiting body and these petitioners are seeking their employment for the post of Sub
Inspectors in Delhi Police and also in paramilitary forces and at this stage even the petitioners are not aware as where ultimately they will find their selection, ifatall they succeed to get their appointments.
Undeniably, Delhi Police happens to beone ofthebodies where these j petitioners have given their options and, therefore, we reiterate our view that in all such matters, the CAT would have jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. By mere fact that some of the bodies, as in the present case, like paramilitary forces CAT cannot exercise jurisdiction that by itself would not come in the way of the CAT to exercise its jurisdiction when for other organizations jurisdiction vests with the CAT under Section 2(A) ofthe Act.
In the light of the above position, we remand back all these matters to the learned CAT and the learned CAT would entertain these petitions and adjudicate uponon their respective merits in accordance with law.
Parties shall appear before the learned CAT on 16.01.2015.
Writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
A
JANUARY 09, 2015
•dc'
KAILASH GAMBfflR, J
JUDGMENT