Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 09, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2144/2018 & CMs 8878-79/2018
TARUN KUMAR GAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Mr. RCS
Bhadoria and Mr. Atin Chadha, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Latika Chaudhury, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had approached Central
st
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which vide order of 1 June, 2017
had directed respondent to consider petitioner’s case within a period of
six weeks. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that third respondent
rd
had examined petitioner’s Representation of 23 May, 2017 and vide
th
order of 18 August, 2017, said Representation has been rejected.
2. There is an office objection regarding maintainability of this
petition. To overcome this office objection, an application has been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that denial of re-employment is on
th
the basis of a policy decision of 7 August, 2003 (Annexure P-1) and so,
this writ petition deserves to be entertained to enable petitioner to assail
the said policy decision (Annexure P-1) .
W.P.(C) 2144/2018 Page 1 of 2
3. To avoid approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, New
st
Delhi again, petitioner has not placed on record the order of 1 June,
2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi as well as the
th
order of 18 August, 2017 vide which petitioner’s Representation has
been rejected. Since petitioner had rightly approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in the first instance, therefore, the
th
order of 18 August, 2017 rejecting petitioner’s Representation ought to
be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi,
th
which has jurisdiction to test the validity of the policy decision of 7
August, 2003 and is also empowered to look into validity of Circular of
st
21 July, 2017 ( Annexure P-9 ).
4. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with liberty to
petitioner to avail of his rights against rejection of petitioner’s
th
Representation vide order of 18 August, 2017, before Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
5. With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
Dasti .
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 09, 2018
v
W.P.(C) 2144/2018 Page 2 of 2
Date of Order: March 09, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2144/2018 & CMs 8878-79/2018
TARUN KUMAR GAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Mr. RCS
Bhadoria and Mr. Atin Chadha, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Latika Chaudhury, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had approached Central
st
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which vide order of 1 June, 2017
had directed respondent to consider petitioner’s case within a period of
six weeks. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that third respondent
rd
had examined petitioner’s Representation of 23 May, 2017 and vide
th
order of 18 August, 2017, said Representation has been rejected.
2. There is an office objection regarding maintainability of this
petition. To overcome this office objection, an application has been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that denial of re-employment is on
th
the basis of a policy decision of 7 August, 2003 (Annexure P-1) and so,
this writ petition deserves to be entertained to enable petitioner to assail
the said policy decision (Annexure P-1) .
W.P.(C) 2144/2018 Page 1 of 2
3. To avoid approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, New
st
Delhi again, petitioner has not placed on record the order of 1 June,
2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi as well as the
th
order of 18 August, 2017 vide which petitioner’s Representation has
been rejected. Since petitioner had rightly approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in the first instance, therefore, the
th
order of 18 August, 2017 rejecting petitioner’s Representation ought to
be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi,
th
which has jurisdiction to test the validity of the policy decision of 7
August, 2003 and is also empowered to look into validity of Circular of
st
21 July, 2017 ( Annexure P-9 ).
4. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with liberty to
petitioner to avail of his rights against rejection of petitioner’s
th
Representation vide order of 18 August, 2017, before Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
5. With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
Dasti .
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 09, 2018
v
W.P.(C) 2144/2018 Page 2 of 2