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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Rajesh Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Office of the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2323 of 2022, CM Appl. 12369 of 2022
Decided On : 31-05-2022




The circular regulating foreign travel permits for court staff does not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution, as it serves a legitimate administrative purpose and does not unjustly discriminate against certain employees.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 - Circular and order unconstitutional - Denial of application for Earned Leave challenged on grounds of violation of rights and discrimination in leave provisions - Court found no basis for claim of discrimination or violation of fundamental rights - Court upheld the circular limiting foreign travel permits and upheld the dismissal of the application for leave. (Paras 1, 2, 28, 44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed as a Senior Personal Assistant, sought to travel abroad to assist his daughter with her educational admission, but the request was denied by the respondent under a circular restricting foreign travel by court staff, leading to the present petition. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petition stating that the circular does not violate constitutional rights and that the authority acted within its discretion based on its staffing needs and the petitioner’s prior leave history. (Paras 10, 42, 44)

Issues: The court addressed whether the circular contravenes Article 14 and Article 21, if the respondent's order was a speaking order, and whether there was a reasonable justification for the denial of leave. (Paras 28, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the respondent's discretion in granting leave aligns with service rules, and no discrimination was established based on the circumstances surrounding the applications. No violation of fundamental rights occurred as the leave conditions serve legitimate objectives without impinging upon the employee's rights. (Paras 10, 28, 34, 44)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for leave and challenges to circular. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of leave application process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments based on constitutional violations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. discussion of proportionality test regarding restrictions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. counterarguments regarding leave conditions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. respondent's assertions and defense in counter affidavit. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. summary of respondent's procedural justifications. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. court's analysis of circular applicability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. key issues and grounds of challenge summarized. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. review of circular and rationale for denial. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
11. court's examination of discrimination claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
12. legal precedents cited and their relevance. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
13. final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
14. conclusion asserting lack of merit in claims. (Para 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM APPL. 12369/2022 (by respondent seeking condonation of 13 days delay in filing the counter affidavit)

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.

Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2323/2022

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

    "a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or direction, for declaring the Impugned Circular [i.e. the Circular dated 04.08.2018 bearing number Admn-II/Cir./2018/49266-50066 issued by the Office of the Respondent] as unconstitutional and null & void;

    b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or direction, for setting aside the Impugned Order [i.e. the Order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Office of the Respondent rejecting the application of the Petitioner seeking grant of Earned Leave for a period of 30 days (from 21.03.2022 to 19.04.2022)];

    c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the Office of the Respondent to allow the application of the Petitioner seeking grant of Earned Leave for a period of 30 days for his travel to Harare (Zimbabwe);

    d) Pass any other order or direction in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice."

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated January 31, 2022 (`Impugned Order', hereinafter) of the respondent, whereby the respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of Earned Leave (`EL', for short) for a period of 30 days, by referring to a circular dated August 04, 2018 bearing No. Admn-II/Cir./2018/49266-50066 (`Impugned Circular', hereinafter), which stipulates a court staff can be allowed to visit a foreign country only during Summer Vacations, Winter Vacations, Public Holidays and in case of any exigency.

3. At the outset, I may briefly narrate the factual background as set out in the writ petition. The petitioner herein holds the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the Court of ASJ-01, Special Judge/POCSO, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The wife of the petitioner is in the employment of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, posted as an Attache in the Embassy of India, at Harare, Zimbabwe, where she is residing with their daughter, aged 17 years. On September 13, 2021, the petitioner filed an application with the office of the respondent seeking grant of EL for a period of 30 days to visit his family in Harare, Zimbabwe, to provide assistance to his daughter for her admission to an educational institution. In response thereto, on September 20, 2021, the office of the respondent sought certain documents and an affidavit from the petitioner.

4. Further, on November 18, 2021 the respondent again sought an affidavit/undertaking from the petitioner. On December 10, 2021, the office of the respondent passed an order whereby the application of the respondent was rejected by referring to the im

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 Back to top