Dismissed

Ravi Kumar v. the Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation and Anr.

Delhi HC7 Sept 2018W.P.(C)/9391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Delhi High Court rejected the petitioner's plea for a stay on ISRO's recruitment process. The court directed the petitioner to urgently file an interim application before the pending Central Administrative Tribunal instead, granting liberty to approach the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach Central Administrative Tribunal for interim relief; writ petition and associated application disposed of.

Ravi Kumar Vs the Chairman, Indian Space Research… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9391/2018

¶4

RAVI KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Ravi Kumar, petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr.Abhishek Ghai, Mr. Rajat Gava and Mr. Shravan Kumar Shukla, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶9

O R D E R % 07.09.2018

¶10

CM APPL. 36384/2018 (exemption)

¶11

Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶12

Application is disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 9391/2018, CM APPL. 36385/2018 ( Ex parte relief)

¶14

Petitioner seeks a direction to stay the recruitment process published by Notification No. ISRO:HQ:ICRB:03:2018 dated 13^th February, 2018 and ISRO:HQ:ICRB 01:2018 dated 31^st January, 2018. The petitioner who appears in person submits that the petitioner has already filed an O.A. being O.A. No. 1325/2018 which is pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the next date fixed is 26^th October, 2018.

¶15

Petitioner in person submits that although alongwith O.A., he has had filed an application for interim relief however, the application has not been considered by the Tribunal although notice has been issued in the application

¶16

seeking stay. It is contended that on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned in the absence of any reply by the respondent. The petitioner submits that in case, interim protection is not granted, the O.A. would become infructous as he has information that the process of selection is nearing completion.

¶17

Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 an advance copy has been served upon respondent No.1 by post at Bangalore. Sh. Sanjeev Narula submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as in case the petitioner has information that the recruitment process is nearly complete, he should have moved an application for early hearing before the Tribunal itself.

¶18

We have heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate. Petitioner submits that in case his application of interim relief is not heard urgently, the recruitment process would be completed and resultantly his O.A. would become infructous. We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner will make urgent application before the Tribunal and if deem it appropriate mention the matter before the concerned Bench after serving a copy of the application to the counsel appearing in the O.A.

¶19

We have no hesitation in observing that in case such an application is filed, the Tribunal would take up and hear the application seeking interim relief.

¶20

With these directions made, present writ petition and application are disposed of.

¶21

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

¶22

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶23

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶24

SEPTEMBER 07, 2018/SU

Ravi Kumar v. the Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. the Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation and Anr.

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

Lata Rana & Ors. Vs D.A.V. Public School & Ors.

Pawan Guliya Vs Dy Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Parth Bhatia Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi and Anr.

Abhilash Kumar Malik Vs Mahender Pratap Singh & Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd.

Bipin Chandra Vs Union of India

Waqar Ahmad Vs South Delh Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Alcatel Lucent Shanghai Bell Co. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Yogita Godara Vs Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Baliraj Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Darshna Devi Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Smt. Hemlata Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Ramakrishna Dutta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Dev Raj Singh