Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 13483 of 2023, CM Appls. 53266 of 2023 & 53267 of 2023
Decided On : 12-10-2023
Cadre Review Committee - Promotion Quota - The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by way of review petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the increase in the promotion quota for Statistical Officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by way of review petition.
Issues: Challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the promotion quota for Statistical Officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, granting liberty to approach the Tribunal by way of review petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated February 08, 2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal', for short) in O.A. No. 2113/2022 and order dated July 11, 2023 passed in M.A. No. 2305/2023 in O.A. No. 2113/2022.
2. In the order dated February 08, 2022, the Tribunal has in paragraph 2 has recorded the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent that Cadre Review Committee (CRC) has taken a decision to increase the percentage for promotion quota from 75% to 100% in respect of Statistical Officer.
3. According to Mr. Singh, the said proposal has not been acted upon as in the month of January, 2023, it has been directed that old Recruitment Rules shall continue to hold the field, which means that the promotion quota shall remain 75%.
4. On a specific query to Mr. Singh, if this being the stand of the petitioners, appropriate for the petitioners is to file a review petition before the Tribunal seeking review of that order.
5. Mr. Singh seeks to withdraw the writ petition to approach the Tribunal by way of a review petition.
6. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by way of review petition, in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending applications are dismissed being infructuous.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of following the appropriate legal procedure, granting liberty to the petitioners to seek review through the Tribunal.
Review petitions should demonstrate an apparent error on the face of the order being challenged, rather than challenging the order on its merits.
A review application can only succeed on grounds available at initial adjudication; new developments post-decision do not constitute sufficient grounds for review.
Point of Law : Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as Application for review of judgment.
Claims for retrospective promotion by a retired employee, following previous litigation which had already granted relief, are barred by the principles of res judicata, particularly when such claims a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of addressing jurisdictional issues and considering review petitions in administrative law matters.
The main legal point established is that seniority is a crucial factor even in merit promotions, and reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is limited to initial appointments and does no....
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
