Disposed

Pinky Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC19 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/802/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court held that a writ petition challenging government recruitment processes under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act is not maintainable. The petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal with specific directions for listing.

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed; petition transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, to be renumbered as original application.

Pinky Yadav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 19.01.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 802/2024

¶5

PINKY YADAV ..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner : Ms. Shriya Chanda and Mr. Shreyuss S Joshi, Advocates

¶10

For the Respondents : Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Advocate

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

(The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)

¶16

CM APPL. 3448/2024

¶17

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

The application stands disposed of.

¶19

W.P.(C) 802/2024

¶20

Keeping in view the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the recruitment processes of the Central Government or Delhi Government being subject matter of Section 14 of the Administrative

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

W.P.(C) 802/2024

¶23

Page 1 of 2

¶24

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 0.01.2024 14:56:43

¶25

Tribunal Act, 1965 and consequently, such challenges being barred to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition would not be maintainable as such before this Court.

¶26

Ms. Shriya Chanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in fact, is one of the candidates, who had cleared Tier-I and Tier-II examinations and by misfortune had missed the deadline for submission of the form for the renotified examination, which was done in compliance of the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 5785-5786/2020 titled Sachin Kumar and Others vs. DSSSB and Others . She requests that the present petition be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in order to save time and administrative delay.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the petitioner as also after having perused the issue raised therein, it is considered appropriate to sent the present writ petition to the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to be renumbered as original application in accordance with the regulations.

¶28