Full Text
W.P.(C) 4054/2012
ROOP LAL Petitioner Represented by: Mr.OmDatt Sharma, Advocate.
Javed, Advocate.
SH. SUDHIR LATA Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Om Datt Sharma, Advocate.
R-1, 2 & 3 (GNCTD)
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER o/o 25.02.2013
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that after the Tribunal decided the Original Applications, facts have surfaced evidencing that the department has issued letters offering appointment to people whose marks W.P.(C) Nos.4054/2012 & 4280/2012 Page 1of[2] 2013:DHC:7259-DB s would be less than the writ petitioners. Counsel states that since this aspect ofthe matter was not highlighted before the Tribunal and is a cause of action arising out of subsequent events, the writ petitions be treated as withdrawn making it clear that on the said subsequent facts alone the petitioners will be entitled to approach the Tribunal once again.
2. The two writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. But, if subsequent facts with respect to appointments made by the respondent are of a kind where a fresh cause of action would be required to be treated as having accrued to the writpetitioners as per law, petitioners will be entitled to maintain a fresh action before the Tribunal.
3. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as not pressed, granting liberty in terms ofthe prayer made hereinabove.
4. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. fLlTIBHA rani, j. FEBRUARY 25, 2013 'dc'