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/-