The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of the petitioner's original application and review petition in a recruitment dispute, noting the gross delay and lack of merit in reopening the 2008 process.
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.
$~2
TABASSUM KHAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.N. Dubey, Adv.
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R % 14.11.2018
Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner applied against the said post and qualified in Part-I and Part-II of the written examination as well as in the skill test of type writing. On the basis of her performance, she was placed at serial no. 6020. However, her result was not declared on the ground that OBC certificate was not provided. In so far as her candidature under general category is concerned, she did not meet the cut-off. The Tribunal did not find merit in the case of the petitioner since she had left the form blank against item no.13 regarding the nature of benefit sought by her. The admitted position was that she had not submitted any caste certificate alongwith her application form. She did not even apply for the caste certificate before the cut off date and therefore, she had no excuse to say that she could not enclose the caste certificate on account of delay in issuance of the caste certificate. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Poonam vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. , WP(C) 8508/2007 and in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Satyanarayan Sheohare & Anr., 2009(2) SCC (L&S) 265. The Tribunal has also relied upon its order in OA 1790/2010 dated 18.07.2011 to hold that only in those cases where the applicant had made the application for obtaining the caste certificate before the cut off date but could not obtain the same due to administrative lapse, the non-submission of the caste certificate could be condoned and not otherwise. It appears that the petitioner accepted her fate with the W.P.(C) 1542/2018 Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
passing of the order dated 02.09.2011 and re-agitated the issue only in the year 2014 by preferring Review Application no. 154/2014. The petitioner sought condonation of 1300 days delay in preferring the Review Application. As aforesaid, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the Review Application.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2018
rc
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(C) 1542/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner deserves condonation of delay and interference with the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the original application and review application?
Whether it is appropriate to reopen the recruitment process of the year 2008 at this delayed stage?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Poonam vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.Referred¶12
_Smt. Poonam vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr._, WP(C) 8508/2007
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Satyanarayan Sheohare & Anr.Referred¶12
_Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Satyanarayan Sheohare & Anr.,_ 2009(2) SCC (L&S) 265 · Who else cites this
TABASSUM KHAN
GOVT OF NCT
VIPIN SANGHI
A. K. CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
