The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a non-party challenging an order of C.A.T. that limited interview marks in a recruitment process for Central Labour Service posts, upholding the Tribunal's procedure.
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.
$~33.
PATI KRISHNA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ninad Dogra, proxy counsel.
versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Damodar Solanki, Advs. for R- 3,4,7 to 10, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 40, 48 to 52. Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC. For R-2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
O R D E R % 05.07.2019
C.M. No. 29475/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7075/2019 & C.M. No. 29474/2019,C.M. No. 29476/2019
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to assail the order dated 18.09.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2179/2014. The Tribunal had disposed of the said Original Application while finding that the award of
50% marks for interview was excessive. The Tribunal directed that the marks for interview should not be in excess of 15%.
Pertinently, the petitioner was not a party in those proceedings. He has now preferred the present writ petition, not only to assail the said order but also to seek quashing of the entire recruitment process and a direction to the respondent No.1 to carry out a fresh process of selection for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) / Assistant Labour Welfare Commissioner (Central)/ Assistant Director in Grade – V of Junior Time Scale of Central Labour Service, Ministry of Labour and Employment.
In our view, the petition is completely misconceived. It was open to the petitioner to raise his grievances before the Tribunal. Accordingly, this petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the case.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
JULY 05, 2019 N.Khanna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can assail an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein he was not a party.
Whether the present writ petition challenging the marks for interview in a recruitment process has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PATI KRISHNA
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
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
