Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Meena and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/3572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners were aggrieved by a CAT judgment rejecting their claim for reservation in promotion due to lack of quantifiable data. The Tribunal applied M. Nagaraj. The petitioners cited a recent Supreme Court order suggesting M. Nagaraj required a Constitution Bench. The High Court declined to interfere or hear the petition, directing the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Supreme C

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of along with pending applications; liberty granted to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief.

Ramesh Chand Meena and Ors. Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3572/2018 & C.M. Nos.14134/2018 (for stay), 14135/2018 (for additional documents)

¶4

RAMESH CHAND MEENA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Dr.K.S. Chauhan, Mr.Ajit Kumar Ekka & Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh & Mr.Narayan Dev Parashar, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 12.07.2018

¶11

The petitioners, who are respondents in O.A. No.3896/2015 filed by the respondents No.4 and 5 herein, are aggrieved by a common judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein the issue relating to reservation in promotion was raised. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal had relied on the case of Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ AIR 2016 SC 1321] as also the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others [ (2006) 8 SCC 212] and held that if the State wishes W.P.(C) 3572/2018 Page 1 of 3

¶12

to exercise its discretion and make provisions for reservation in promotion, it must collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Class and inadequacy of the representation of that Class in public employment in addition to complying with Article 335. Noting that the respondents herein have not conducted the exercise as directed by the Constitution Bench in the case of M Nagaraj (supra) and that without such an exercise being conducted, no State/Authority can apply the rule of reservation in promotion, the Tribunal has disposed of the original application with directions to the respondents to comply with directions given in M. Nagaraj (supra), by collecting the quantifiable data for giving effect to the rules of reservation in promotions.

¶13

Dr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in a recent order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Jayanta Chakrobarty & Ors. [Civil Appeals No.4562-4564 of 2017], it was opined that the case requires to be heard by a Constitution Bench as per the constitutional mandate under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, for consideration, including a relook at the judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra), if necessary.

¶14

On perusing the order dated 14.11.2017 in Jayanta Chakrobarty (supra), we find that the counsel for the petitioners therein had pressed for an interim relief, which was declined by the Supreme Court with an express view that even interim relief needs to be considered by the Constitution Bench, and liberty was granted to the parties to mention W.P.(C) 3572/2018 Page 2 of 3

¶15

the urgency before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.

¶16

This being the position, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment or entertain the present petition, which is disposed of alongwith the pending applications with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief.

HIMA KOHLI, J

REKHA PALLI, J

JULY 12, 2018 gm

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 3572/2018

Ramesh Chand Meena and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Meena and Ors. v. Union of India 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

Tecnique Systems Vs the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) Icd,Tughlakabad,New Delhi & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Safebot Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Additional Director General,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, & Ors.

President'S Secretariat Vs R.K. Jain

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Zuber & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shivraj Krishna Gupta Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Randhir Jaiswal Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Medical Superintendent, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital & Anr. Vs Dr. Vinay & Ors.

Roma Bhagat Baraya Vs Mala Bhagat Bali & Anr.

Aman Srivastava Vs Union Public Service Commission and Ors.

Rajan Kumar Shukla Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sugan Yadav