Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Shakti Singh Arya & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous No. 12107 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2022
cadre allocation - reservation category - The court directed that any steps taken by the respondents concerning cadre allocation will be subject to the final outcome in the main matter, which addressed the reservation category in which the petitioners fall.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought interim relief against an interlocutory order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which declined their prayer for cadre allocation in the reservation category without setting out any reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that any steps taken by the respondents concerning cadre allocation will be subject to the final outcome in the main matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal was modified accordingly.
Issues: Interim relief against the interlocutory order of the Tribunal, cadre allocation in the reservation category, and the principle of lis pendens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that any steps taken by the respondents concerning cadre allocation should be subject to the final outcome in the main matter, ensuring that the petitioners' rights in the reservation category are protected.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that any steps taken by the respondents concerning cadre allocation will be subject to the final outcome in the main matter, and the impugned order of the Tribunal was modified accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM No.12108/2022
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4069/2022 & CM No.12107/2022[application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking interim relief]
2. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 28.02.2022, passed by the Central administrative Tribunal [in short ?he Tribunal? in Oa No.2793/2021.
3. Issue notice.
3.1. Ms Beenashaw N. Soni accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/UOI.
4. In view of the directions that we propose to pass, according to us, no counter-affidavit is required.
5. accordingly, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
6. Mr arun Khatri, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the Tribunal declined the prayer made for interim relief, without setting out any reasons.
6.1. a perusal of the impugned order shows that the main matter [i.e., Oa No.2793/2021] is listed before the concerned bench of the Tribunal on 30.03.2022.
6.2. We may indicate that the principal grievance of the petitioners is that cadre allocation is not being carried out, in terms of the reservation category in which the petitioners fall.
6.3. The petitioners, we are told, fall in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
7. Since the main matter is listed for hearing shortly, we have asked Mr Khatri as to what is the apprehension of the petitioners.
7.1. Mr Khatri says that the Tribunal has not even indicated in the impugned order that the cadre allocation, if made during the pendency of the Oa, will be subject to the final outcome in the Oa.
7.2. Ms Soni, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says the principle of lis pendens will apply, and if this court were to issue a direction to that effect, the respondents cannot have any objection.
8. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that any steps taken hereafter by the respondents concerning cadre allocation, will be subject to the final outcome in the O.a. [i.e., Oa No.2793/2021].
8.1. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2022 shall stand modified, to that extent.
9. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.
The principle of lis pendens and the protection of the petitioners' rights in the reservation category influenced the court's decision to modify the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Interim relief in administrative matters must be accompanied by clear reasoning; actions taken during a legal proceeding must respect the principle of lis pendens.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the Tribunal to address the lack of interim protection in the previous interim order.
The court affirmed the necessity for tribunal adherence to procedural fairness and the importance of protecting applicants' rights pending substantive hearings, particularly in examination and select....
The court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Tribunal's judgment and highlighted the importance of technology in both enabling solutions and creating problems.
Judicial intervention in cadre allocation is limited; rectifications post long delays can destabilize existing management unless egregious errors are proven.
The court emphasized the importance of prompt consideration of the main matter or interim application by the Tribunal and instructed the respondents to refrain from taking any hasty actions against t....
The court mandates the Tribunal to address pending applications promptly to ensure effective relief and maintain status quo for affected parties.
The court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of matters by the Tribunal and considered the legal aspect of inter-divisional transfer while a charge is being enquired into.
A candidate's right to amend their application for an examination category is upheld, emphasizing the importance of allowing necessary changes where procedural opportunities exist.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
