Dismissed

Staff Selection Commission v. Amitabh Yadav & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12508/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition challenging a consent order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding OBC category seat allocation, dismissing the petition and directing the petitioner to file a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to comply with the Tribunal order within four weeks.

Staff Selection Commission Vs Amitabh Yadav… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Decision delivered on: 06.09.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12508/2024 & CM APPL. 51956/2024

¶5

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Hemant Kumar Yadav, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

AMITABH YADAV & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shobha Gupta, Senior counsel with Mr. Kawinarpon Chanenamei, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 51955/2024

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Accordingly, aforesaid applications stand disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 12508/2024 & CM APPL. 51956/2024

¶16

By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

¶17

1. Issue a Writ against the Order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in

¶18

W.P.(C) 12508/2024 Page 1 of 3 pages

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 1.09.2024 18:03:06

¶20

Original Application No. 1424 of 2018 to set aside and quash the same; and

¶21

4. Noticed issued.

¶22

Advocate Kawinarpon Chanenamei accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶23

Before the learned Tribunal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted that the petitioner was not aware as to which zone, the candidate as per his merit-cum-preference is likely to get, on being considered to be a candidate of OBC category in the aforesaid selection process.

¶24

Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the OA can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to consider the candidature of the respondent no.1 in the aforesaid selection process in question, as a candidate belonging to OBC category and thereafter allocate service/department/organization/zone in accordance with his merit-cum-preference under the OBC category with a further direction to the concerned department to grant consequential relief.

¶25

To the aforesaid, learned counsel for applicant/respondent no.1 herein had no objection if the OA was disposed of in the terms as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein.

¶26

Accordingly, learned Tribunal, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, passed the order as under:

¶27

i) to respondent no.3 to consider the candidature of the applicant as a candidate belonging to OBC in the aforesaid selection process and make recommendation for the relevant service/ post/

¶28

W.P.(C) 12508/2024

¶29

Page 2 of 3 pages

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 1.09.2024 18:03:06

¶31

organization/ cadre and the zone of such service/ cadre keeping in view merit-cum-preference of the applicant treating him belonging to OBC category;

¶32

ii) to the concerned department/organization of respondents no. 1 and 2 to give consequential benefits in terms of decision/recommendation of respondent no.3 from the date when the immediate junior of the applicant in the relevant merit list has got the benefit; and

¶33

iii) the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Since the said order is a consent order, we find no ground to interfere with the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶35

The petitioner is directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal within four weeks from today.

¶36

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

(GIRISH KATHPALIA)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/as

¶41

W.P.(C) 12508/2024

¶42

Page 3 of 3 pages

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 1.09.2024 18:03:06

Staff Selection Commission v. Amitabh Yadav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Staff Selection Commission v. Amitabh Yadav & Ors.

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

Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs Dav Public School & Ors.

R.P.Dabas Vs University Grants Commission

Ramavtar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the Commissioner and Others

Ajay Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited and Others

M/S Capital Land Builder Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of East Delhi & Ors.

Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union of India and Ors.

R.P.Dabas Vs University Grants Commission

Vijay Kaushik Vs Commissioner of Police

Union of India and Ors. Vs Narendra Pal & Ors.

Meeran Haider Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs Hari Om Gupta

Union of India and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Dhiman