Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Vaibhav Malik – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Its Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM aPPL. 4290/2022
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1504/2022 and CM aPPL. 4289/2022
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Ms Bharathi Raju accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1/DoPT, while Mr Sanjay Katyal accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 i.e., the contesting respondents, in effect, Delhi Development authority ('DDa').
3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Central administration Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in O.a. No. 2857/2021.
4.1. The petitioners before us are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on account of the fact that no substantive interim relief was granted thereby rendering its action inefficacious.
4.2. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed, albeit, as an interim measure that selection(s) and appointment(s) made pursuant to the circular dated 22.11.2021, shall be subject to the final outcome in the pending Oa.
5. according to the Mr ankur Chibber, who appears for the petitioners, as well as Mr Katyal, t
The importance of considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential harm in granting interim relief, and the need for a reasoned interim order.
The court highlighted the necessity for the Tribunal to provide adequate reasoning when issuing interim orders and the importance of defining the crucial date based on recruitment rules.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the seniority list and the implications of promotions made pursuant to LDCE for the year 2021-22, highlighting the importance of adhering ....
The court's decision was based on the principle that the petitioners should appear in the examination as scheduled without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the Tribunal.
Provisional participation in interview pending fresh action before the Tribunal
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 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....
The court affirmed the principle that candidates must receive timely notification of appointment tests to ensure fairness in the selection process.
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
