Sunny Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The prayer clause in this appeal reads thus: “PRAYER In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and the submission made, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble High Court may graciously please:

I. To allow the Writ Petition; and

II. To quash and set aside- the Impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 of CAT(PB)NO. 40 of 2024 in O.A. NO.1165/2020 Annexure P-1(colly), Order dated 07.08.2024 (Compliance Affidavit) (Annexure P-2), Order dated 16.05.2024 (Speaking Order) Annexure P-3: and

III. To Direct the respondents to issue offer of

IV. To Direct the respondent to give seniority as per the select list at the time of initial appointment in MTS on Notational basis; and

V. To Direct the respondent to pay damages and the cost to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-for causing irreparable loss and mental agony; and

VI. To pass any such order/orders as may be deemed fit regarding cost on the Respondents for their illegal, arbitrary act and in defiance of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and

VII. Any other writ order or directions as the

4. Of the prayers in this appeal, prayers III, IV and V cannot be entertained by this Court in the first instance in view of the judgment of the 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI[1]. Liberty would stand reserved with the petitioner to take up these issues by way of a substantive challenge before the learned Tribunal.

5. What survives is Prayer II, which assails order dated 20 August

2024 passed in CP 40/2024. The order reads thus: “ORDER (ORAL) “At the outset, the learned proxy counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 16.05.2024 in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal issued on 10.04.2023, rejecting the case of the petitioner.

2. We find that since a detailed order has already been passed by the respondents, which goes to the roots of the merits of the case, the present CP stands closed, of course with liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievances in accordance with law, if so required. Notices are discharged.”

6. The operative portion of the judgment dated 10 April 2023 reads thus: “5.[1] In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the instant OA quashing the order dated 04.05.2020 by virtue of which offer of appointment issued to the applicant has been rejected. The respondents are hereby directed to examine the case of the applicant in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh’s case (supra). In case the applicant is otherwise found to be suitable/eligible and fit for being employed, he would be offered appointment and extended other consequential benefits notionally in terms of his merit position.”