Allowed

Nirmala v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/920/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition impugning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that declared an application barred by limitation. The Court held that the Tribunal's findings were factually incorrect as ST category results were not declared and allowed the petition with a direction to remand the matter for afresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; matter remanded to the Tribunal to be decided afresh; respondents directed to file an affidavit regarding non-declaration of ST category results.

Nirmala Vs Delhi Subordinate Services… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~07

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 920/2015

¶4

NIRMALA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Joymoti Mize, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC-GNCTD. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶8

O R D E R % 15.02.2016

¶9

This writ petition impugns the order dated 30^th November,

¶10

2014 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.4111/2013 holding that the aforesaid original application was barred by limitation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits and points out that the Tribunal has erroneously noted that the results were declared on 6^th October, 2009 and the OA was filed on 21^st November, 2013 and, hence, it was filed four years after declaration of results. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶12

that results of the Scheduled Tribe category candidates are yet to be declared, though four candidates belonging to ST category have been appointed pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. This factual position is accepted by the counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi.

¶13

In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order being factually incorrect cannot be sustained.

¶14

We accordingly allow the present petition and remit the matter to the Tribunal to be decided afresh keeping all issues and questions open.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent appearing for the respondent-Government of NCT of Delhi is presently unable to ascertain and clearly point out whether any appeal has been preferred against the decision in W.P.(C) 7977/2012, Babita Kumari & Ors. Vs. DSSSB & Ors. and other matters following this decision. He is also unable to state whether there is any effective stay order pursuant to which result of the ST category candidates have been withheld. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, however,

¶16

states that as per his information, there is no effective stay order of the Tribunal, of this Court or Supreme Court. Mr. Kaushik also states that the petitioners in the W.P.(C) 7977/2012 i.e. Babita and others, who have succeeded in the writ petition, have been appointed under the ST category.

¶17

We also direct that the respondents on or before the next date before Tribunal, will file an affidavit of the Member Secretary, DSSSB, clearly stating the reason for non-declaration of result of the ST category candidates.

¶18

List before the Tribunal on 17^th March, 2016.

¶19

Looking at the nature of the controversy, we would request the Tribunal to take up the matter and decide it expeditiously.

¶20

Copy of this order will be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

¶21

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶22

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

¶23

FEBRUARY 15, 2016 NA

Nirmala v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitali Bhattacharya Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Mangal Mishra and Ar Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.

D.T.C. Vs Rajbir Singh

Sudesh Kumari Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs Pooja

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rail Mazdoor Union Vs the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.

M/S. Emaar Properties Pjsc Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Durga Dutt Saini

Commissioner of Police Vs Preetpal Singh

Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs Chattar Pal Singh

Rishipal Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs Nem Pal

Union of India & Ors. Vs Tarun Kumar Tiwari