Full Text
Translation output
34,35,36,39 and 44 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8312/2016 & CM Nos.34451/2016, 37000/2016, 41208/2016,43240/2016
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Pranav Agrawal,Advoeate
>
W.P.(C) 8312/2016 & CM Nos.34451/2016, 37000/2016, 41208/2016,43240/2016
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Pranav Agrawal,Advoeate
>
VERSUS
PRAMOD AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr.Anand Nandan,Advocate
Through: Mr.Anand Nandan,Advocate
WITH
W.P.(C)8319/2016& CMNo.34485/2016
UOI AND ORS Petitioners Pranav Agrawal,Advocate
UOI AND ORS Petitioners Pranav Agrawal,Advocate
VERSUS
TARUN KUMAR AND ANR Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) 8320/2016 & CM Nos.34487/2016, 36999/2016, 41207/2016,43584/2016
UOIAND ORS Petitioners 2016:DHC:8865-DB >
UOIAND ORS Petitioners 2016:DHC:8865-DB >
VERSUS
DEVENDERPRATAP SINGH AND ORS Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C)11112/2016&CMNo.43442-43/2016
UNION OFINDIA &ORS Petitioners
UNION OFINDIA &ORS Petitioners
VERSUS
ANUJ KUMAR&ORS Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C)11138/2016&CMNos.43524-25/2016
UNION OF INDIA &ORS Petitioners
UNION OF INDIA &ORS Petitioners
VERSUS
PRASHANT KUMAR & ORS Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
25.11.2016 > V The Union ofIndia has filed the present writ petition,impugningthe order dated 8.4.2016, whereby the OA filed by the respondents was allowed, based on the decision rendered by the Ahmedabad Bench ofthe
Tribunal in OA No.478/2015 titled Kaustubha Devang Pandya <6 7Ors.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
25.11.2016 > V The Union ofIndia has filed the present writ petition,impugningthe order dated 8.4.2016, whereby the OA filed by the respondents was allowed, based on the decision rendered by the Ahmedabad Bench ofthe
Tribunal in OA No.478/2015 titled Kaustubha Devang Pandya <6 7Ors.
VERSUS
Union ofIndia & Ors. The impugned order, in fact, does not contain any discussion on the contentionsraised and the respective stand of the parties, except for quoting the operative portion ofthe decision ofthe
Ahmedabad Bench ofthe Tribunal in OA No.478/2015.
The Gujarat High Court, by its
Ahmedabad Bench ofthe Tribunal in OA No.478/2015.
The Gujarat High Court, by its
ORDER
dated 16.8.2016, has set aside the order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in
KaustubhaDevangPandya(supra).
The order of the Gujarat High Court has been challenged in the
Special Leave to Appeal(C)No.30550/2016,Monu Tomar Vs. Union of
India vide order dated 28.10.2016 leave to appeal has been granted. The
Supreme Court noticed 652 posts ofPostal Assistant and Sorting Assistant were required to be filled-up. 196 appellants were before the Supreme
Court and in the said circumstances, the Supreme Court had permitted the authorities to fill-up the aforementioned posts, subject to the condition that they shall notfill-up 196 posts.
^(3 Learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has made a statementthatthe impugned order passed bythe Tribunal may be set aside, with an order of remand. He submits that the case ofthe respondents is factually different and many ofthe said respondents had participated m the examinations conducted outside the State of Gujarat. In some cases, the examination papers and the dates, on which the examinations were held.
S were different.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contests the said statement asserting dis-similarity and submits that the decision of the
Gujarat High Court would fully and squarely apply to the case of the respondents also. He also states that some ofthe respondents had,in fact, participated intheexamination conductedinthe StateofGujarat.
We would not like to examine the factual issue in each case/each candidate and consequently whether or not, the matter would be fiilly covered by the decision ofthe Gujarat High Court. Further,leave to appeal has been granted against the said judgment, which is pending before the
Supreme Court. We have passed the order of remit, for even if the judgment ofthe Gujarat High Court is upheld,the contention raised by the respondents may have to be considered.
In the given facts, we would accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order may be set aside with an order of remand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside,with an orderon remand,withoutexpressing any opinion on merits.
Learned counselforthe respondents statesthatthe interim protection, in terms ofthe order ofthe Supreme Court,should also be granted till the
^ matter is first heard by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Petitioners opposesthe said prayer.He statesthattherespondents are notpartiesto the specialleaveto appealbeforethe Supreme Court.Hefurther statesthat652 posts ofPostal Assistant and Sorting Assistant, mentioned in the order of the Supreme Court,relate tothe State ofGujarat.
We are inclined to repeatthe order granted by the Supreme Court in the present writ petition also, for the simple reason that the case of the
^ respondents regarding interim protection cannot be differentiated from the case of the candidates before the Supreme Court. This interim order, as noticed above,will continue till the matter is first listed before the Tribunal and thereafterthe Tribunal can pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal will examine the contention ofthe petitioners thatsome ofthe respondents had appeared in the examination conducted in the State
V of Gujarat and also whether the decision of the High Court would be squarely applicableto the candidates,who had appeared in the other states.
Allcontentions are left open.
Parties are directed to appear beforethe Tribunal on 15.12.2016.
The writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. CM
No.34553/2016 also stands disposed of.
SANJIVKHANNA,J NOVEMBER 25,2016 b CHANDER SHEKHAR,J
KaustubhaDevangPandya(supra).
The order of the Gujarat High Court has been challenged in the
Special Leave to Appeal(C)No.30550/2016,Monu Tomar Vs. Union of
India vide order dated 28.10.2016 leave to appeal has been granted. The
Supreme Court noticed 652 posts ofPostal Assistant and Sorting Assistant were required to be filled-up. 196 appellants were before the Supreme
Court and in the said circumstances, the Supreme Court had permitted the authorities to fill-up the aforementioned posts, subject to the condition that they shall notfill-up 196 posts.
^(3 Learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has made a statementthatthe impugned order passed bythe Tribunal may be set aside, with an order of remand. He submits that the case ofthe respondents is factually different and many ofthe said respondents had participated m the examinations conducted outside the State of Gujarat. In some cases, the examination papers and the dates, on which the examinations were held.
S were different.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contests the said statement asserting dis-similarity and submits that the decision of the
Gujarat High Court would fully and squarely apply to the case of the respondents also. He also states that some ofthe respondents had,in fact, participated intheexamination conductedinthe StateofGujarat.
We would not like to examine the factual issue in each case/each candidate and consequently whether or not, the matter would be fiilly covered by the decision ofthe Gujarat High Court. Further,leave to appeal has been granted against the said judgment, which is pending before the
Supreme Court. We have passed the order of remit, for even if the judgment ofthe Gujarat High Court is upheld,the contention raised by the respondents may have to be considered.
In the given facts, we would accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order may be set aside with an order of remand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside,with an orderon remand,withoutexpressing any opinion on merits.
Learned counselforthe respondents statesthatthe interim protection, in terms ofthe order ofthe Supreme Court,should also be granted till the
^ matter is first heard by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Petitioners opposesthe said prayer.He statesthattherespondents are notpartiesto the specialleaveto appealbeforethe Supreme Court.Hefurther statesthat652 posts ofPostal Assistant and Sorting Assistant, mentioned in the order of the Supreme Court,relate tothe State ofGujarat.
We are inclined to repeatthe order granted by the Supreme Court in the present writ petition also, for the simple reason that the case of the
^ respondents regarding interim protection cannot be differentiated from the case of the candidates before the Supreme Court. This interim order, as noticed above,will continue till the matter is first listed before the Tribunal and thereafterthe Tribunal can pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal will examine the contention ofthe petitioners thatsome ofthe respondents had appeared in the examination conducted in the State
V of Gujarat and also whether the decision of the High Court would be squarely applicableto the candidates,who had appeared in the other states.
Allcontentions are left open.
Parties are directed to appear beforethe Tribunal on 15.12.2016.
The writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. CM
No.34553/2016 also stands disposed of.
SANJIVKHANNA,J NOVEMBER 25,2016 b CHANDER SHEKHAR,J