Full Text
$-10 to 12.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2302/2017 and CM APPL. 9896/2017
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Petitioners
Through; None
Through: Mr. K. P. Sundar Rao, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Manasa, Advocates
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Petitioner^
Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
07.02.2018 1.- Aggrieved by the common order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the
Tribunal in three connected O.As., bearing No.1982/2014 entitled Saniav
2018:DHC:9195-DB I Kumar and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors., O.A. No.2578/2014 entitled Deepak
Kumar and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors. and O.A. No.2577/2014 entitled Ravi
Ranian vs. UOI and Ors., the petitioners/Ministry of Railways, Union of
India have filed the present petition. In all the three O.As., the petitioners therein (respondents before us) had raised a grievance against the Ministry of Railways for having cancelled their candidatures to the post of Health &
Malaria Inspector Grade III, on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed educational qualifications from the recognised
University/Institution.
ORDER
2. With the consent of the parties, all the three O.As. were disposed of by the common impugned order with directions issued to the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondents in terms of the letter dated \ 28.08.2014, issued by the Railway Board and reproduced in the body of the order and if the said letter was found to be applicable, permit them to join duty by issuing appropriate appointment orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/UOI in W.P.(C) 3825/2017 and 3827/2017 submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners had passed an order dated 22.04.2016 in all the three cases informing the respondents that they were not found eligible for appointment in the Railways on the basis of their educational qualification, i.e., Diploma in Health and Sanitary Inspection from "Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, Tamil Nadu", having undertaken the said course via distance education. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid letters were filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal alongwith the reply affidavit in response to the contempt petitions filedby the respondents and after taking the said W.P. (C) 2302/2017& connected matters Page 2 of[4] t documentson record, the Tribunalhad disposedofthe contemptpetitionsby discharging the contempt notice. ',
4. We are surprised to note that after complying with the directions issued in the impugned consent order passed by the Tribunal, by issuing rejection letters dated 22.04.2016 in each case, the petitioners have proceeded to file the present petitions in April, 2017, assailing the very same consent order.,5. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for. the petitioners/UOI in W.P.(C) 3825/2017 and 3827/2017 states that the petitioners do not wish to press the present petitions any further, as nothing survives for adjudication.
6. Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents shall seek legal recourse against the rejection orders dated 22.04.2016, before the competent forum vested with jurisdiction in this regard. 7- In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners, W.P.(C) 3,825/2017 and 3827/2017 are disposed of alongwith the pending applications,.. -
8. As for W.P.(C) 3827/2017, we may note that this case has been called twice alongwith the other connected petitions. On each occasion, counsel for the petitioners was absent. Even on the third call in the post lunch session, none is present on behalf ofthe petitioners.
9. Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners in.W.P.(C) 3827/2017 had passed a similar rejection order in respect of the respondents No.l and 2 herein on 22.04.2016 and in view ofthe said letter, the contempt petition filed by the respondents before theTribunal was disposed of andthe W.P.(C) 2302/2017 & connected matters Page 3 of[4] y contempt notice was discharged.
10. That being the position, the above petition is also disposed of alongwith the pending application with liberty granted to the respondents No.l and 2 to seek legal recourse against the rejection order dated 22.04.2016, before the appropriate forum. HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 07, 2018 rkb/na PlL4TffiHARAkl, J W.P.(C) 2302/2017 & connected matters Page 4 of[4]