The Court held that since the respondent tribunal remanded the matter for fresh decision with full opportunity for parties, no interference with the impugned orders was warranted.
Petition dismissed with direction to respondent no. 3 to decide matter without influence of adverse observations in respondent no. 1's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2443 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vipin Pal Respondent :- The Central Administrative Tribunal And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Singh,Santosh Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Ugrasen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.
Notice need not be issued to the respondent no. 5 in view of the order which we may propose to pass.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated 04.10.2018 and 01.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition).
It appears from the perusal of the impugned orders that the petitioner's appointment was challenged by the respondent no. 5 by filing O.A. No. 1752 of 2010 before the respondent no. 1 which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 4.10.2018 with a direction to the respondents in O.A. No. 1752 of 2010 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order. Against the aforesaid order dated 04.10.2018, the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 22 of 2019 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 01.07.2019.
Since by the impugned order dated 04.10.2018, the respondent no. 1 has remanded the matter to the respondent no. 3 for
deciding the matter afresh, none of the rights of the parties have been determined and the parties will have full opportunity to agitate their claims before the respondent no. 3 and hence no interference with the impugned orders is warranted.
However, it is made clear that the respondent no. 3 shall decide the matter without being influenced by any observation made by the respondent no. 1 in the impugned orders, adverse to the petitioner's claim.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.2.2020 SA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the impugned orders remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Vipin Pal
The Central Administrative Tribunal
4 Others
Bala Krishna Narayana
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
