Satbir Singh v. Union Of India & ORS

Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$~6,7&10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1499/2014 ANGAD KUlVlAR Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate i i j versus I UNIONOFINDIA& ORS Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, i Advocate with Mr.Prashant :

Ghai, Advocate + W.P.(C) 2487/2014 SATBIR SINGH Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate 'r-A versus UNIONOF INDIA& ORS Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Vikas Mahajan, Advocate with Mr.Vinod Kumar Tiwari,, Advocates with Mr.S.S.Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF + W.P.(C) 6068/2014 BIVASH MOYRA Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate i versus UNIONOF INDIA& ORS Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI .

• !

W.P.(C)1499/2014,W.P.(C)2487/2014,W.P.(C)6068/2014 PageI of3

%

ORDER

16.04.2015 1.

As we proceeded to hear the writ petitions it transpired that the real grievance of the writ petitioners has, though pleaded in the writ petition but in a very round-about manner, got lost in the prolix pleadings; which have misled the respondents to think that the grievance concerns filling up of post of Head Constable (Min.) in the context of the department filling up the posts in terms of a notification dated January 27, 2011 and the case of the at the vacancies had to be filled up in terms of the petitioners being th ;ober 19, 2012 given effect to on March 19, 2013. notification dated Oc 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the real grievance is two ng posts in the departmental promotion quota for OBC folds. Firstly, reserv:

second to the fact that of the 260 posts for the candidates and the departmental candidates only 89 were allocated as unreserved.

114 posts were reserved for OBC candidates.

26 and 34 for SC and ST candidates respectively thereby l^reachingthe 50% limit of reservation. 3.

Before the writ petitions were filed, letters offering appointment had already been issued and the persons likely to be affected by a decision in the writ petitions have not been impleaded as respondents. Two options are available. To either permit the petitioners to amend 4.

the writ petitions by deleting the surplus pleadings and expanding upon the laconic pleadings concerning the two points sought to be advanced at the hearing today and simultaneously to implead as respondents the persons likely to be affected . The second is to permit the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions with right reserved to file fresh petition(s) on the twin issues qua which the petitioners have a grievance. Counsel for the petitioners prays for the latter option to be exercised. W.P.(C) 1499/2014, W.P.(C)2487/2014, W.P.(C)6068/2014

5.

We dismiss the writ petitions as withdrawn granting Hberty to the petitioners to file fresh petition(s) on the twin issue which the petitioners intend to litigate on.

The petitioners, if they file fresh petitions, would implead the persons appointed in the departmental quota as head constables in the OBC category because their interest would be adversely affected if relief is granted to the petitioners.

6.

No costs.

7.

Dasti PRADEEP NANimAJOG, J A rani;

APRIL 16,2015 skb W.P.(C) 1499/2014, W.P.(C)2487/2014, W.P.(C)6068/2014