Dismissed

Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. Icar and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/10782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest petition challenging an invalid appointment of a Legal Advisor at ICAR was dismissed. The court held that after eleven years and the respondent's superannuation, the matter is barred by laches, contrary to public interest, and infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The present writ petition and application are dismissed on the grounds of laches as well as contrary to public interest and it having become infructuous.

Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs Icar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~186

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10782/2021 & CM APPL. 33264/2021

¶4

AMIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mrs. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Ms. Akshita Nain, Advocates. versus ICAR AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Sheogan and Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, aDvoate with Mr. Aditya Kumar Yadav, Mr. Prateek Chhikara, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry, Mr. Arpit Bamal, Mr. Alok Yadav, Mr. Sanjeev Deshwal and Ms. Swati, Advocates for respondent No.2.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶6

O R D E R % 12.09.2024

¶7

Present public interest petition has been filed challenging the recruitment process initiated by the respondent No.1/ICAR for recruitment for one unreserved post of Legal Advisor, ICAR, New Delhi on direct recruitment basis, whereby respondent No.2 was appointed as ‘Legal Advisor, ICAR’ vide offer of appointment dated 08^th December, 2010.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondent No.2 was not eligible for the post of Legal Advisor on account of non-fulfilment of both

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:02:05

¶10

the eligibility conditions i.e. having practiced for ten years as an Advocate or having worked in any legal department for five years as Judicial Officer or a Law Officer (in PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 with GP as Rs.6600).

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner states that the act and omissions of respondents are in violation of DoP&T OM No.11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19^th May, 1993 read with OM No.36011/1/2012-Estt.(Res.) dated 10^th January, 2013 whereby punishment of discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service is recommended for Government servants who procured initial appointment on the basis of false information. 4. Admittedly, the present writ petition has been filed eleven years after respondent No.2’s appointment in January, 2010. The Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 799 has held that, ‘ at this lapse of time, it may be difficult to direct either the unseating of the candidates who have performed their duties. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest since they have gained experience…… ’ During the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent No.2 has even superannuated on 30^th September, 2023. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, the present writ petition and application are dismissed on the grounds of laches as well as contrary to public interest and it having become infructuous.

¶12

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶14

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 js

¶15

Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. Icar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. Icar 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

Shri Rajpal Vs Adm (Notification) & Anr.

Dilip Jha Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rina Ghoshal Vs the State Trading Corporation of India Limited

Sh Ravinder Singh & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sanjeev Kaushik Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Ausil Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S M.D. Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life through Its General Secretary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Waqf Board Employees Association & Anr. Vs & Ors.

Jupiter Pharmaceuticals Vs Union of India and Another

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs St. Columbus School and Anr.

Amita Sinha Vs Sneha Srivastava & Ors.

Mrs. Viveka Khanna Vs India Sme Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Isarc) and Anr.