In the case of Arun Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that the present petition, along with all pending applications, was disposed of as they are not maintainable, with the liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Brief Facts of the Case
On 13th June 2013, a notification was issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) notifying vacancies for the post of Welfare Officer, Social Welfare Department of Govt. of NCT Delhi.
The Petitioner applied under the SC category and appeared for the examination. He was shortlisted at the third position in view of the marks obtained by him. Despite the fact that the candidates at positions 1 and 2 did not join, he was not permitted or called for joining the post of Welfare Officer.
The Prayer in the present petition is that the Petitioner be selected for the post of Welfare Officer as the notified seat is still lying vacant.
Arguments before the Court
Mr Rajeev Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not barred. He further urged that whenever there is a violation of principles of natural justice or of fundamental rights, writ jurisdiction is exercised.
Ms Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the petition is not maintainable before this Court in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. She relied upon the judgments of this Court in Praveen Sharma v. UPSC [W.P.(C) 498/2006, decided on 20th June 2007] and Ram Niwas Solanki & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [W.P.(C)3232/2020, decided on 22nd May 2020].
It was observed by the court that perusal of the present petition would be covered under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The two judgments cited by Ms Avnish Ahlawat would be applicable to the present case. The case of Praveen Sharma related to a person who had appeared in the UPSC examinations and was seeking another chance to appear. He was still outside the system itself and despite that, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in view of L. Chandrakumar v. UOI, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
In the present case, the Court did not find any extraordinary circumstance or illegality that persuaded it to exercise writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Petitioner was permitted to approach the CAT for redressal of his grievances in accordance with the law.
However, the Court was not satisfied with the facts aforesaid in the present petition and held that the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of as they are not maintainable while giving the Petitioner the liberty to approach the CAT.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.