Aakash Deep Chakravarti v. Union of India & Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent No.1/Ministry of Communication & IT and the respondent No.2/Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) to implement the order dated 30.9.2014 and appoint him as an Executive Director (Law) on deputation basis for a period of three years. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 11.11.2014 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1.

2. At the outset, counsel for the respondent No.1 hands over a copy of the letter dated 21.11.2014 addressed, by the respondent 2014:DHC:6865 No.1 to the respondent No.2, informing the latter that the petitioner was not eligible for deputation on the post of Executive Director (Law) as he had just finished the permissible tenure of seven years at a stretch for deputation outside the Department of Posts and has not completed the mandatory cooling off period of three years in the department, as per the extant instructions issued by the DOPT. He also hands over a copy of the letter dated 26.11.2014 addressed by the respondent No.2/DERC to the respondent No.1/Ministry, with a copy marked to the petitioner which states that the respondent No.2/DERC had considered the matter and given its approval to withdraw and cancel the offer to the post of Executive Director (Law), made to the petitioner in view of the communication dated 21.11.2014 addressed by the respondent No.1. The aforesaid documents are taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that there is not a whisper in the petition with regard to the aforesaid correspondence, though the petitioner was kept in the loop.

4. Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that on account of a bereavement in the family, the petitioner was out of town between 26th November, 2014 and 5th December, 2014 and on returning, he was apprised of the aforesaid communication, but by then, the present petition had already been filed. He states that in view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner may be granted leave to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to assail the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 26.11.2014, in accordance with law.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending applications. (HIMA KOHLI) DECEMBER 09, 2014 JUDGE sk