Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan - Appellant
Versus
Komendra Prakash Gautam & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 2781 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2022
Interim Order - Writ Petition - The court directed the Tribunal to deal with the interlocutory application filed in O.a. No.2108/2021, as the previous interim order had not provided interim protection to the petitioner, and the status quo was continuing to the detriment of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against the interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.a. No.2108/2021, as the previous interim order had not provided interim protection to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Tribunal to deal with the interlocutory application filed in O.a. No.2108/2021, as the previous interim order had not provided interim protection to the petitioner, and the status quo was continuing to the detriment of the petitioner.
Issues: The issue was the lack of interim protection to the petitioner in the previous interim order passed by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for the Tribunal to address the interlocutory application filed in O.a. No.2108/2021, as the previous interim order had not provided interim protection to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to deal with the interlocutory application filed in O.a. No.2108/2021, and the parties were directed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM aPPL. 7980/2022
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2781/2022
2. This writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 25.10.2021, as extended by orders dated 11.11.2021 and 21.12.2021, passed by the Central administrative Tribunal [in short 'the Tribunal'] in O.a. No.2108/2021.
3. We may note that, before instituting the above-captioned petition, respondent no.1 [i.e., the original applicant] had approached this court by way of another writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.11469/2021. at that point in time, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3.1. In the aforesaid writ petition, respondent no.1 had approached the court against an interlocutory order dated 27.09.2021, passed by the Tribunal in the very same O.a. i.e., O.a. No. 2108/2021.
3.2 To be noted, via the aforesaid O.a., respondent no.1 had assailed the transfer order dated 27.08.2021, passed by respondent no.2 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, KendriyaVidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), on multiple grounds.
3.3. Since no interim protection was granted by the Tribunal, respondent no.1 was aggrieved that his O.a. [i.e., O.a. No. 2108/2021] will be rendered inefficacious.
3.4. It is in this context that we had observed that the Tribunal needs to examine the matter, and pass directions one way or the other, either with regard to the interim relief sought by respondent no.1 or in the alternative, render a decision in the main matter.
3.5. Furthermore, it is in this context that we had directed that the petitioner/KVS will maintain status quo till the Tribunal takes up the matter on the next date i.e., on 25.10.2021.
3.6. The judgment in the aforementioned writ petition was rendered on 06.10.2021.
4. Mr anil Nag, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that because the Tribunal has not found time to examine the matter, the status quo continues to obtain, which works to the detriment of the petitioner.
5. To be noted, Mr Devesh Chauvia has joined the proceedings on behalf of respondent no.1.
5.1. The other respondents are official respondents, who are connected to the petitioner. Even according to Mr Nag, they are proforma respondents.
6. We are told that the matter is fixed before the Tribunal today i.e., 14.02.2022.
7. Given this position, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to deal with, if not the main matter, at least the interlocutory application filed in O.a. No.2108/2021, as directed [via judgment dated 06.10.2021, passed in W.P.(C) No.11469/2021].
7.1. If for any reason, the matter is not taken up today, the Tribunal will endeavour to deal with the matter, as directed, within the next two weeks.
8. Mr Nag says that the aforementioned directions should suffice, and that the writ petition can be closed.
8.1. Mr Chauvia assures the court that respondent no. 1 will cooperate with the Tribunal in the disposal of the matter.
9. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of, as noticed above, in the aforesaid terms.
10. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of this order.
The court mandates the Tribunal to address pending applications promptly to ensure effective relief and maintain status quo for affected parties.
The Court upheld the need to maintain status quo on a transfer order pending the Tribunal's examination, ensuring the petitioner's rights are preserved until a decision is made.
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 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.
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....
Administrative transfers cannot occur while an inquiry is pending, ensuring due process within administrative proceedings.
An inter-divisional transfer cannot occur while an inquiry into pending charges is ongoing, emphasizing the need for due legal consideration before such actions.
The court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to conduct a thorough evaluation of legal principles and factual context before vacating interim orders affecting civil service officers' postings.
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.
The court directed provisional participation in an interview while preserving the ability to contest eligibility, emphasizing that such permission does not confer rights pending further Tribunal acti....
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
