High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9785/2015dismissed

Ajeet Singh v. Union Of India And ORS

2015-05-18Ms. Justice Navita Singh,Mr Justice Jaswant Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9785 of 2015 Date of Decision: May 18, 2015 Ajeet Singh .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

Present: Mr.Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

-.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment to the post of Junior Engineer made under 25% inter-media quota by the Railways, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. His Original Application has been dismissed being barred by limitation as well as for non-impleadment of selected candidates, besides applying the principle of estoppel.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. While we do not subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal that the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct merely because he had participated in the selection process, nevertheless, we are satisfied that the Tribunal's order on other two grounds can sustain.

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.06.09 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.9785 of 2015 [2] The undisputed facts are that the selection and consequential appointment took place on 04.06.2010. It further appears that in a subsequent new selection process also the petitioner failed. Thereafter, he sought information under Right to Information Act and based upon such information received on 28.08.2013, that the Original Application was filed. The Tribunal has held and rightly so that the Original Application was barred by limitation. Similarly, the petitioner wanted the Tribunal to setaside the selection even without impleading those candidates who are bound to be affected. No effective relief could be granted to the petitioner in the absence of selected candidates.

For the reasons afore-stated, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Dismissed.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 18, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.06.09 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh