Dismissed

Asha Chandra v. Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC8 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/1922/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging an impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner sought to retain a promotion obtained based on a seniority number that was an administrative error. The court clarified that no misconduct or deliberate malafides were involved, noting the error was corrected promptly before permanent consequence, and held that the petitioner c

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's order that the petitioner cannot claim rights based on the corrected seniority.

Asha Chandra Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~ 24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1922/2016 & CM APPL. 8252/2016

¶4

ASHA CHANDRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.T.D. Yadav, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Saurabh Chadda, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶8

O R D E R % 08.03.2016

¶9

The impugned order dated 17^th February, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, holds that the petitioner herein cannot claim any right on account of a mistake or an administrative error. 2. The petitioner by mistake was given a wrong seniority No.407, which was corrected on 12^th September, 2013 after inviting objections. She was then assigned her correct seniority No. 2578 (2002-2006).

¶10

As a result of wrong seniority position, the petitioner was promoted as Vice-Principal, whereas the last seniority number entitled to promotion as a Vice Principal was serial no.1035 (1994-2001) in SC (Female Category).

¶11

The contention of the petitioner is that the seniority fixed long ago, could not have been changed, as rights had accrued. The said principle would have no application in the present case, for the petitioner was promoted as Vice-Principal only on 28^th December, 2012 and soon thereafter

¶12

the mistake was corrected and consequently the order of promotion was cancelled on 15^th April, 2014. This is not a case where on a principle or criteria/basis inter-se seniority of a group of employees once fixed was changed by adopting a different rule or criteria. The error or mistake became relevant when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Vice Principal on 28^th December, 2012. Correction of mistake was made soon or immediately and not after a long gap.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. JT 1993 (1) SC 220. In the said case it was noticed that the selected candidates appointed in February, 1985 had worked for almost 8 years. The Supreme Court noticed that there were no records to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits or to relax the minimum qualifications in favour of some candidates. If the considerations which had weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, it would lead to injustice. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court did not cancel the appointments made, but had issued guidelines for future selection process. 6. Counsel for the petitioner at the end has submitted that the petitioner is to retire in four months’ time and the impugned order dated 17^th February, 2016 passed by the Tribunal has been publicized and an impression has been created that the petitioner had deliberately or mala fidely procured promotion as a Vice Principal. We would like to clarify that the impugned order does not hold that the petitioner was in any way responsible and instrumental in fixing of the wrong seniority. This is not a case where any punishment has been imposed or mis-conduct has been established. An error in the seniority list had been made, which was subsequently corrected. We hope and trust that no misinformation will be circulated and publicized. This must be highlighted and pointed out to the colleagues.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

SANJIV KHANNA, J

¶16

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶17

MARCH 08, 2016 Ssn/NA

Asha Chandra v. Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Chandra v. Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hawkers Suraksha Foundation All India Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Yogesh Gupta & Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

No 962332788 Constable/ Gd Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sukdeb Sahu Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mohd Yameen Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

M/S Lovely Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

Man Mohan Kaur Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Denso India Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Denso India Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Inderjit Banga Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rammi Kapur Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jagdish Chand Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.