Dismissed¶¶20

Kunal Kashyap v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: withdrawal of writ petition; liberty to avail alternative remedies; Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction over recruitment; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261; appeal under RTI Act; denial of information; DSSSB Junior Judicial Assistant recruitment 2024; alleged examination malpractices; representations to GNCTD; Delhi High Court; Prateek Jalan, J; W.P.(C) 353/2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. ¶¶20

Kunal Kashyap Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law.

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding alleged malpractices in the Junior Judicial Assistant examination, and his request for a direction to act upon his representation, must first be pursued before the Central Administrative Tribunal rather than the High Court. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

The recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and, having regard to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the petitioner is bound to first approach the Tribunal.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Denial of information under the RTI Act is amenable to appeal under the RTI Act.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

This Court has not entered into the contentions of the parties; all available grounds may be raised in accordance with law before the appropriate Court.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a candidate for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant in the District Courts (pursuant to DSSSB vacancy notice/advertisement dated 12.01.2024) alleging malpractices in the conduct of the examination, seeking a direction to the respondents to act upon his representation and to disclose information denied to him under the RTI Act. Held: (i) the recruitment is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and, having regard to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the petitioner is bound to first approach the Tribunal; (ii) denial of information under the RTI Act is amenable to appeal under the RTI Act. Counsel for the petitioner accordingly sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail alternative remedies; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty, and the Court expressly made clear that it had not entered into the contentions of the parties, all available grounds remaining open before the appropriate Court.

¶1

$~96

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 353/2025 KUNAL KASHYAP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Advocate

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 13.01.2025

The petitioner was a candidate for selection to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant in the District Courts, in terms of a vacancy notice/advertisement dated 12.01.2024, issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board.

¶11

It is the contention of the petitioner that there were certain malpractices in the conduct of the examination, which have vitiated the results. He has filed certain representations with Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in this regard, and has also filed applications under the Right to Information Act [“the RTI Act”], which have been denied.

¶12

In these circumstances, he has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to act upon his representation seeking investigation into the alleged malpractices, and seeking disclosure of the information

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

W.P.(C) 353/2025

¶15

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 24/01/2025 at 14:28:29

¶16

denied to him.

¶17

As far as the first aspect is concerned, the recruitment is admittedly amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the petitioner is bound to first approach the Tribunal.

¶18

As far as second aspect is concerned, denial of information under the RTI Act is also amenable to appeal under the RTI Act.

¶19

In view of the above, Mr. Arjun Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law.

¶20

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

¶21

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the contentions of the parties. All available grounds may be raised in accordance with law before the appropriate Court.

¶22

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 13, 2025 Tp/AD/

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

W.P.(C) 353/2025

¶26

Kunal Kashyap v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Kashyap v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pardeep Kumar Gulati Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 50 (1), Delhi

Salman Jameel & Ors. Vs Indian Institute of Technology (Iit) & Anr.

Praveen Reehl & Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank, & Ors.

Mahender Kumar Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.

Kamlesh Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.

Pragati Defence Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Hyderabad Cable Digital Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Salman Jameel & Ors. Vs Indian Institute of Technology (Iit) & Anr.

Nishat Abdullah and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjay Ambavat & Ors. Vs the Honble High Court of Delhi Trhough Its Registrar General & Ors.

Mrs. Manju Jain Vs Managing Committee of Dayanand Model Secondary School and Anr.

Pradip Kumar and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Sh. Shiv Kumar Chaudhary Vs Public Works Department