SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Rajendra Prasad Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent


JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. Both appeals impugn the order dated 9th October, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.3509/2020, deciding the question of maintainability of the writ petition and of this Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

2. The appeals were entertained and the hearing on merits of W.P.(C) No.3509/2020 before the Single Judge deferred till the decision of these appeals.

3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the senior counsel for the respondent State of Rajasthan, supporting the UPSC, the counsel for the interveners before the Single Judge and who have filed LPA No. 348/2020, the counsel for the Union of India (UOI), also supporting UPSC and the counsel for the original writ petitioners, opposing these appeals.

4. The writ petition, from which these appeals arise, was filed by 20 Non-State Civil Service (Non SCS) officers of the State of Rajasthan, who claim to be eligible for consideration for induction into Indian Administrative Services (IAS) and who had been called for interviews to be held at Delhi. They were aggrieved from the communication dated 31st December, 201

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top