Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Anjul Sharma (Dr.) – Appellant
Versus
State Council of Educational Research and Training – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tribunal's order for hearing (Para 4) |
| 2. petitioner's eligibility for appointment (Para 5) |
| 3. recourse to proper legal remedies (Para 6) |
| 4. provisional participation in interview and consequences (Para 7) |
| 5. parties to act on digitally signed order (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):-
CM Nos.10176-77/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3467/2022
CM No.10178/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for interim relief]
CM No.10179/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for placing on record additional documents]
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Ms Avnish Ahlawat accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. This writ petition seeks to lay challenge to the order dated 15.02.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in O.A. No.358/2022.
4.1. The operative directions passed by the Tribunal are contained in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter :
"5. In view of the limited prayer made by
The court directed provisional participation in an interview while preserving the ability to contest eligibility, emphasizing that such permission does not confer rights pending further Tribunal acti....
Provisional participation in interview pending fresh action before the Tribunal
Administrative decisions must follow procedural fairness, and undue delay in raising challenges does not invalidate prior lawful appointments.
The court affirmed the necessity for the Tribunal to examine recruitment practices as per the ESIC Act, particularly the conflict between promotee appointments and direct recruitment for the Lab Assi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to address the petitioner's claim regarding the disciplinary authority and the possibility of victimization, and the court's author....
The court affirmed the necessity for tribunal adherence to procedural fairness and the importance of protecting applicants' rights pending substantive hearings, particularly in examination and select....
The Court upheld the need to maintain status quo on a transfer order pending the Tribunal's examination, ensuring the petitioner's rights are preserved until a decision is made.
The court mandates the Tribunal to address pending applications promptly to ensure effective relief and maintain status quo for affected parties.
The Tribunal's dismissal of an application based solely on limitation, without addressing substantive legal claims, constitutes a reversible error warranting judicial intervention.
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
