IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Harish Chandra Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 290 of 2023 & CM Appl. 1160 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Seniority - Quashing of Gradation List - Constitutional Violation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the Gradation List issued by the Respondents, alleging violation of constitutional provisions and office memorandums. The petitioner also sought re-fixing of seniority as per UPSC ranking and consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order. The petition and pending application were disposed of with this direction.
Issues: Violation of constitutional provisions, seniority re-fixing, and consequential benefits
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order. The petition and pending application were disposed of with this direction.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief(s):
"a. Quash/ set aside the Gradation List dated 31.07.2018 issued by the Respondents, wherein the seniority of the Petitioner has been depressed in violation of Arts. 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution of India, 1950 and also the same being contrary to the Office Memorandum No. 9/23/71-Estt.(D) dated 06.06.1978 & Office Memorandum No.35015/2/93-Estt.(D) dated 09.08.1995 & Ministry of Home Affairs Letter No. 1-45022/69/97 Pers-I dated 28.08.1997, and
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby direct the Respondents to re-fix the seniority of the Petitioner as per Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) ranking given in Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Written Examination, 2004 i.e., in 38th Batch, by taking the initial date of appointment as 24.11.2006 and to hold that the Standing Order 1/2009 [No. A.VI- 1/2008 Pers-I (AC)] dated 12.01.2009 is not applicable to the Petitioner, and
c. To provide all consequential benefit accruing to the Petitioner including grant of Local Rank of Deputy Commandant from the time it had fallen due.
d. Direct that the cost of the Petition may also be granted in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.
e. Pass such other further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;"
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for the aforesaid relief(s), petitioner made representation dated 20.06.2022, however, till date, the said representation has not been decided by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, who is appearing on advance notice, has assured this Court that the representation dated 20.06.2022 filed by the petitioner shall be decided within six weeks.
4. In view of above, we hereby direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 20.06.2022 filed by the petitioner within six weeks from today and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within one week thereafter with reasoned order.
4.1. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition and pending application are disposed of.
5. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his representation, he may approach the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents in response to the petitioner's representation.
The court mandates that administrative bodies must respond promptly to representations within a reasonable timeframe, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to dispose of a petition when the respondents agree to revise the seniority list and provide consequential benefits if found eligible.
Non-consideration of representations made to a Statutory Authority amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the court's invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of I....
The High Court may issue a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an administrative authority to consider and dispose of a pending representation on its own merits without delvi....
The court emphasized the necessity for administrative compliance with prior court orders when determining appointment and seniority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.