The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to review an order due to a patent error and to direct the respondents to comply with the Tribunal's order.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

Review Pet. No.333/2017

1. The affidavit has been filed by the respondents in terms of our order dated 01.09.2017. The respondent No.2 states in the said affidavit that the vacancy position in respect of TGT (Hindi) in the Directorate of Education, GNCTD is 422, which includes 271 (Male) and 151 (Female). Thus, it is evident that a vacancy is available, which could be filled by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had preferred the writ petition to assail the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in C.P. No.548/2016 arising out of O.A. No.203/2015. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, had dismissed the said contempt petition preferred by the petitioner. When the writ petition was heard, the same was dismissed by our judgment dated 24.04.2017 – of which the petitioner now seeks review.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order dated 24.04.2017 dismissing the writ petition, this Court had not taken into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal on 20.02.2017 in the said contempt petition. Mr. Tandon points out that the speaking order dated 07.10.2016, which had purportedly been passed in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 18.01.2016 – declaring the petitioner/ applicant ineligible was, prima facie, found to be contemptuous by the Tribunal and, accordingly, the same was withdrawn by the respondents. However, the respondents had again passed a similar order dated 21.03.2017 and, on this occasion, the contempt petition was dismissed without appreciating that the earlier similar order dated 07.10.2016 had already been withdrawn by the respondents. This aspect was not noticed by this Court, while passing the order dated 24.04.2017.

4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the impugned order needs to be reviewed as a patent error has crept in the said order dated 24.04.2017. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 24.04.2017 is recalled/ reviewed. We now proceed to dispose of the writ petition afresh, having heard the submissions of learned counsels.

W.P.(C.) No. 3460/2017

5. The petitioner had preferred the Original Application being O.A. No.203/2015, being aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature by the respondent for the Post Code No.7/2013, i.e. TGT–Hindi (Female) advertised vide Advt. No.1/2013.

6. The relevant background facts are that the petitioner had initially applied in response to an Advt. No. 2/2012 for the post of TGT (Hindi) (Post Code No.109/2012), and she was issued e-admit card No.45000830. Later on, she also applied for the said post, advertised in Advt. No.1/2013 Post Code No.7/2013. Her application for Post Code No.7/2013 was rejected on the ground of not having the requisite qualification, as on the closing date. The common examination for both the Post Codes No. 109/2012 and 7/2013 was held on 28.12.2014. The petitioner had appeared in the examination held on 28.12.2014 on the strength of the admit card issued in respect of Advt. No.2/2012. When the results were declared, the petitioner did not meet the cut-off marks in respect of posts advertised vide Advt. No.2/2012 (Code No.109/2012). However, she had secured more than the cut-off marks in respect of posts advertised vide Advt. No.1/2013 (Post Code No.7/2013).

7. Since the stand of the respondents was that she did not have the requisite qualification – as on the closing date in respect of the subsequent advertisement, viz. Advt. No.1/2013 – because of which she was not selected against one of the vacancies advertised vide Advt. No.1/2013, she preferred the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature in respect of Post Code No.7/2013 was improper. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in its decision, qua the petitioner, read as follows:

“26. The facts of these two instant cas