HC: Supplanting Court’s view with Tribunal does not fall Article 226

  

On 14^th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh refrained from supplanting its views with those of the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that it is not in the remit of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court further stated that had it been dealing with the original action, a different conclusion could have been arrived at but that by itself could not be a reason for the court to interdict the directions issued by the Tribunal.

Facts of the case:

The writ petition was filed challenging the judgement dated 31.08.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal according the respondent an opportunity to change his category from “unreserved‟ (in short “UR”) to “economically weaker section‟ (in short “EWS”) for the purpose of a competitive exam.

Contention of the Petitioner:

Mr. Harish Kumar Garg, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, contended the following: 

1. It was submitted that the impugned judgement is flawed, as it would impact the manner in which examinations are conducted by the petitioners in future.
2. It was stated that the respondent had made a mistake in indicating in his application that he fell in the EWS category.
3. Mr. Garg also emphasized that, the instructions uploaded on the website provided ample opportunity to the applicants, which included the respondent, to edit and/or amend the online application form i.e. change his category from UR to EWS.
4. Mr. Garg also argued that the respondent had taken the examination for appointment to the post of constable, albeit, as a UR candidate.

Contention of the respondent:

The respondent argued on the following grounds:

1. It was submitted that when the respondent had filled up the online registration form, the EWS category was not available..
2. It was contended that the respondent, in this behalf, had made a representation to the petitioners, which remained unanswered. This impelled the respondent to approach the Tribunal for obtaining the respondent, in this behalf, had made a representation to the petitioners, which remained unanswered. This impelled the respondent to approach the Tribunal for obtaining requisite relief.

Observation and judgement of the cout: 

he Hon’ble bench of the court made the following observation:

1. Since the exam has already been held, its impact can only be ascertained once the result is known. It is only if the respondent is declared successful that the petitioners would have to take a call as to, whether the respondent should be treated as a candidate falling in the EWS category. take a call as to, whether the respondent should be treated as a candidate falling in the EWS category.
2. Although, the impugned judgement was rendered as far back as on 31.08.2020, the petitioners chose to approach the Court after nearly 11 months. The delay in approaching the Court has, in our view, to a great extent, diluted the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they were concerned that the impugned judgement could impact examinations that may be held in future.

For the aforementioned, the court did not interfere with the impugned judgement. Thus, the petition was accordingly dismissed.

Read Judgment;

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure