Delhi High Court Holds Petition Non-Maintainable While Allowing for Redressal Through CAT

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

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].

 

Court’s Observation

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. 

 

Court’s Decision

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.

 

Click here to view the original judgement


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -