Union Of India & Ors vs Jitendra Vaishnav on 26 September, 2011

                                       1

9
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8929/2011
                        Union of India & Ors.
                                  vs
                         Jitendra Vaishnav
                                   ..

    DATE OF ORDER: 26th September 2011


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

    Mr.M.S. Godara, for the petitioners.
                                 

    BY THE COURT:

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

having perused the material placed on record, we are unable

to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in the

just and proper order dated 08.07.2011 as passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

(‘the CAT’) in Original Application No. 47/2011 essentially on

the agreement of the parties for taking a practical approach.

All that the CAT has observed and ordered in the impugned

order is as under:-

“I have heard the learned counsels for both the sides.
Both counsels are in agreement that a practical approach
can be made in this regard that the department will open
the sealed cover and find whether the applicant has
passed, and if the applicant has failed then as regard this
limb of consideration, the matter is over for the applicant,
but if the applicant has passed, then the consequences of
such passing will be decided by the respondents within a
time frame of two months next.

2. Regarding the regularization also, the respondents are
directed to determine whether the applicant is eligible or
not on the basis of extant rules and inform him within a
time frame of two months by passing a speaking and
reasoned order.

2

3. With the above observations and directions, the
Original Application is, thus, disposed of. Consequently,
Misc. Application filed by the applicant for giving direction
to the respondents to produce the result of the applicant,
which is kept in the sealed cover, before this Tribunal, is
also disposed of. No order as to costs.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner though feebly

attempted to suggest that the petitioners are aggrieved of the

directions as contained in paragraph 2 of the order aforesaid

but we are unable to find any basis for any grievance where

the CAT has made the observations only to the effect that the

respondents shall determine, within 2 months, whether the

applicant is eligible or not and shall pass a speaking and

reasoned order.

An attempt to invoke the writ jurisdiction in this kind of

matter raises rather the question on the objectivity of the

approach of the petitioners.

This petition remains totally bereft of substance and

stands dismissed.

(KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.

cpgoyal/-