Parikshit Grewal & ORS. v. Uion Of India & ORS.

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 636/2025, CAV 30/2025, CM APPLs. 3061/2025, 3062/2025 & 3063/2025 PARIKSHIT GREWAL & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Sr.

Adv. with Ms. Anushree Kapadia, Mr. M.

Thirupathi Reddy, Mr. Harsh Panwar and Ms. Diva Saigal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr.

Piyush Beriwal, Mr.

Kautilya Birat, Mr. Sandip Muniah and Ms.

Jyotsna Vyas, Advs. for R-1/UOI.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Anand Singh, Mr.

Shantanu Shukla and Ms. Sarika Soam, Advs. for R-2/NTA.

Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Mr. Harkesh, Mr. Samarth and Mr.

J. S. Mann, Advs. for R-3 to 30.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R(ORAL) % 17.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1.

Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, very fairly submits that he has no objection to the recruitment process being made subject to the outcome of the OA and

to the said direction in the impugned order dated 13 January 2025, subject to two caveats, the first being that the Central Administrative Tribunal1 should not be encumbered by any of the observations contained in the order dated 13 January 2025 while hearing the OA finally and, secondly, that the matter may be listed before the Tribunal on a fixed date as the case pertains to an ongoing recruitment process which would not attain finality till the Tribunal takes a view. 2.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition by maintaining the impugned order dated 13 January 2025 to the extent it renders the recruitment process subject to the outcome of the OA. 3.

We direct the OA to be listed before the Tribunal on 31 January 2025.

4.

We note that the order dated 13 January 2025 also requires the petitioners to implead certain persons who have not been made parties. Learned Counsel have joined issue on this aspect. It is Mr. Mehta's contention that the successful candidates are unknown to the petitioners and that, therefore, there is no defect of non-impleadment of necessary parties.

5.

We refrain from express any opinion on this. It would be open to the Tribunal to take a view in that regard after hearing learned Counsel.

1 "Tribunal" hereinafter

6.

However, we request the Tribunal, if possible, not to grant adjournment on 31 January 2025 and to take up the matter on the said date.

7.

Learned Counsel for the parties have also undertaken not to seek any adjournment from the Tribunal on the said date. Needless to say, the liberty to seek legal remedies pursuant to the decision of the learned Tribunal would stand reserved.

8.

The petition stands disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

JANUARY 17, 2025/AS Click here to check corrigendum, if any