Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Swarna Sarada - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1175 of 2022, W.P.(C) 1179 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 1185 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applications dismissed, judgment rendered. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. challenge against tribunal's order due to delay. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writ petitions cannot be entertained without delay explanation. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):
CM No.3394/2022 in W.P. (C) No.1175/2022
CM No.3403/2022 in W.P. (C) No.1179/2022
CM No.3452/2022 in W.P. (C) No.1185/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1175/2022 & CM No.3393/2022
W.P.(C) 1179/2022 & CM No.3402/2022
W.P.(C) 1185/2022 & CM No.3451/2022
2. The above-captioned writ petitions are directed against the order dated 04.09.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in O.A. Nos. 4345/2014, 4312/2014 & 3614/2013.
3. We are in January 2022. There is no explanation given as to the delay in filing the above-captioned writ petitions.
3.1. The examination qua which the issue has been raised i.e., the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination [in short "LDCE"] took place in 2012 and a challenge to the same was raised in 2013 and 2014.
3.2. The Tribunal had passed directions in 2013 in connected matters, which have been noted in the impugned order. The order dated 21.05.2013, passed by the Tribunal in OA No.644/2013 and other connected matters [including OA No.207/2013], was challenged by way of W.P.(C) No.4843/2013, before this Court, which was dismissed on 01.08.2013.
4. Since there is no explanation with regard to delay, the above-captioned writ petitions cannot be entertained. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.
Timeliness is essential in filing legal petitions; lack of explanation for delays leads to dismissal of writ petitions.
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 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.
Delay in filing a writ petition undermines its viability, especially when an expert opinion supports the decision being contested.
The court emphasized that dismissing a case without merit-based reasoning is improper, necessitating remand for a fresh adjudication.
The emergence of previously undisclosed evidence warrants review of administrative decisions to ensure fair adjudication.
The court upheld the Tribunal's discretion to create supernumerary posts for promotions based on earlier judgments, affirming no irregularities necessitate interference.
A decision must be rendered by the same individuals who heard a case to ensure procedural fairness and consistency in adjudication.
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 ....
A party cannot claim ignorance of judicial decisions when there is sufficient public notice of court proceedings, especially when they are familiar with judicial processes.
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
