Remanded

Union of India & Ors. v. Paramjit Singh

Delhi HC6 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/4281/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that the petitioner had raised a new defense for the first time regarding the respondent's engineering degree qualification, citing a Supreme Court judgment concerning distance learning degrees. Since the tribunal failed to consider this aspect, the order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.03.2015 was set aside and the case was remanded to the tribunal to consider the issue of educational qualification.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Paramjit Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~17.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4281/2016 with CM APPL. 18062/2016

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. R.V Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh and Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶5

versus

¶6

PARAMJIT SINGH ..... Respondent

¶7

Through:

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 06.12.2018

¶11

None appears for the respondent when the matter is called out. The submission of Mr. Sinha is that the claim of the respondent was premised on his averment that he had obtained a Engineering degree from Janardhan Rai, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University – a deemed university established under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 vide notification dated 12.01.1987 of the Govt. of India. He had claimed that he had completed 8 years of regular service on 29.01.2010 and, therefore, he claimed he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (E).

¶12

Mr. Sinha submits that the engineering degree obtained by the respondent is not a valid degree in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. , (2018) 1 SCC 468, since the respondent claimed to have obtained the

¶13

said degree through distance education.

¶14

We find that this defence was not raised by the petitioner before the tribunal. It has been raised for the first time before this court. Before the tribunal, the submission of the petitioner was that no vacancy was available in the promotional post.

¶15

On the last date, the respondent had sought an adjournment to take instructions after pursuing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra).

¶16

On a perusal of the said judgment, particularly paras 9, 27.11 onwards and the operative part of the judgment contained in para 66.7, it appears to us that the issue whether the respondent had engineering degree from a recognised institution would require consideration. The recruitment rules for the concerned post would also have to be gone into. This exercise has not been undertaken by the tribunal, since this aspect was never raised before the tribunal. Pertinently, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 03.11.2017, whereas the impugned order was passed on 18.03.2015. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the tribunal for consideration of the issue with regard to the educational qualification now raised by the petitioner.

¶17

List the matter before the tribunal on 17.01.2019.

¶18

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶19

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶20

DECEMBER 06, 2018 sr

Union of India & Ors. v. Paramjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Paramjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Vs South Delhi M.C.D. through D.C.M.C.D. Green Park & Ors.

Vikash Sharma Vs South Delhi M.C.D. Thorugh D.C.M.C.D. Green Park and Ors.

Sunny Vs South Delhi MCD through Dcmcd Green Park & Anr.

S K Nigam Vs Alok Mehrotra

Mahesh Chand & Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Collector & Anr.

Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Mahesh Yadav and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Ravinder Singh and Anr. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. Vs Dr. Sangeeta Ahuja

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Beena Devi and Ors.

Ravi Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Harish Tandon Vs Gerneral Manager Northern Railway and Anr.

Rajveer Singh Verma Vs Union Public Service Commission and Anr.