IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Arjun Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7412 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Exemption - Writ Petition - The court directed the respondents to extend the benefit given in previous petitions to the petitioners in the present petition if they are similarly situated candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the extension of benefits given in previous judgments to similarly situated candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to extend the benefits to the petitioners if they are similarly situated candidates and allowed the petitioner to submit correct information to the respondents for decision.
Issues: Extension of benefits to similarly situated candidates, submission of correct information by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal position was clarified, and the court directed the respondents to extend benefits to similarly situated candidates and allowed the petitioner to submit correct information for decision.
Final Decision: The petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to extend the benefits to similarly situated candidates and allow the petitioner to submit correct information for decision.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 28854/2023 (Seeking Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7412/2023
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners are similarly situated and cover in the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) 3343/2023 and W.P.(C) 3453/2023.
4. We note that while rejecting the representation of the petitioners it is mentioned in paragraph 4 that the said judgment is applicable only to those petitioners who are party in the Writ Petitions, but that is not the legal position.
5. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to extend the benefit given in the above said petitions to the petitioners in the present petition also if they are similarly situated candidates.
6. To this effect necessary order shall be passed by the respondents within six weeks from now.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that some incorrect details are mentioned in the petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit the correct information to the respondents within one week and thereafter, the respondents shall take decision within six weeks.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
The court clarified the legal position and directed the extension of benefits to similarly situated candidates.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making on representations for promotion.
The court permitted the closure of a writ petition, allowing the petitioners to pursue a related petition for further contentions.
The decision of independent subject experts is final and binding on the petitioner.
Administrative authorities retain discretion over postings; courts may intervene only in cases of arbitrariness or unreasonable actions.
A contempt of court proceeding may be closed if the petitioner acknowledges that the directions issued in the underlying judgment have been fully complied with by the respondents.
Litigation becomes moot when no live issues remain for adjudication after actions have been executed.
The High Court may direct statutory authorities to dispose of pending revision petitions within a prescribed timeframe, ensuring natural justice through a hearing for the parties involved.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that similarly placed persons challenging termination orders should be treated alike, and the benefit of a judgment should be extended to them,....
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.