Writ petition challenging a CAT order that had allowed an OA solely in terms of orders in two other OAs. Since those foundational orders stood set aside by this Court, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned Tribunal order was set aside. Respondents did not appear.
Impugned CAT order dated 16.12.2016 set aside; writ petition allowed.
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.
$~22
Date of decision: 10.01.2024
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash , CGSC, Mr. Farman Ali, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Taha Yasin, Mr. Yasharth Shukla, Ms. Astu Khandelwal and Mr. Ayushman Kishore, Advocates.
versus
DEEPAK GOYAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9253/2019 Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed By:localhost Signing Da te:1 1.01.2024 14:40:02
the year 2019 and is, therefore, taken up for disposal today itself without granting any further opportunity to the respondents .
“8. However, in O.A. No. 2883/2015 & O.A. No. 2891/2015 as observed in para 3 of the order dated 16.09.2016, the applicants therein were permitted to appear in the examination with the condition that their result shall be kept in a sealed cover. Though, in the present O.A. also, an interim direction to the Head of Department/Controlling Officer to forward the applications of the applicants to the UPSC was granted on 21.08.2015, it is not forth coming from the counter, whether the applicants herein participated in the examination or not. 9. In these circumstances, and in view of the above, The OA is allowed in terms of order dated 16.09.2016 passed in OAs No. 2883/2015 and OA No. 2891/2015, subject to the observation made in para 8 of above. No costs.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9253/2019 Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed By:localhost Signing Da te:1 1.01.2024 14:40:02
issued in O.A. No. 2883/2015 and O.A. 2891/2015. We have also perused the judgment dated 01.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 1738/2017 and W.P.(C) 4711/2017 and find that the learned Tribunal’s order dated 16.09.2016, passed in O.A. No. 2883/2015 and O.A. 2891/2015 already stands set aside. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, once the order premised on which the impugned directions were issued, has in itself been set aside, the present petition has to necessarily succeed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE
(RAJNISH BHATNAGAR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2024
p
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9253/2019 Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed By:localhost Signing Da te:1 1.01.2024 14:40:02
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2016 be set aside when the earlier order it relied upon has already been set aside by this Court?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India and Anr.
Deepak Goyal and Ors.
Rekha Palli
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
