Ravinder Kumar v. Ssc

ORDER 2s.0s.2011

¶1This order is in continuation of the order dated 26th April, 2011.

¶2The counsel for the petitioners has contended that notwithstanding the subject matter of the writ petition relating/concerning recruitnent, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) would not have jurisdiction because .:t, - J 'F "h -) /D the relief is claimed against the respondent which is a mere recruiting agency and not against the employer.

¶3No merit is found in the said contention; merely because instead of impleading the employer, the recruiting agency is impleaded cannot oust the jurisdiction of CAT.

¶4The counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the following judgments: (D Union of India Vs. Shiv Charan Sharma 2007 IX AD (Delhi) 296; wtth reference to the last part of para 4 of the judgment, it is contended that it is only a person holding a civil post who has the right to approach the Tribunal. It is contended that since the petitioner is not holding any post till now, he will have no right. The said judgment is being read out of context and a line here or there cannot be looked up as laying down the law.

(ii) Hari Singh Vs. Staff Selection Commission 2010 V AD (Delhi) 599; though the matter concerned recruitunent but admittedly the question of jurisdiction was not examined and hence this judgment carurot be said to a precedent on the matter in controversv.

(iii) Smt. Meena Vs. Union of India 108 (2003) DLT 116; the s{ case was concerning compassionate appointment and wittr respect to which CAT was held to have no jurisdiction. -4 v t' / .u

(iv) Union of India Vs. Chotelal AIP* 1999 SC 376; the Tribunal was held to have no jurisdiction for the reason of the dispirte not relating to any civil post. (") Phool Badan Tiwari Vs. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2353 again the petitioners were held to be not employees but employed only on part time basis and hence Tribunal was held not to have jurisdiction.

¶5On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent has referred to Ms. Nighut Parveen Vs. Union of India 1995 II AD (Delhi) 616 where the Division Bench held that the definition of "service matter" is very wide and even the process of selection for service would be governed by the word "seryice maffer". The counsel for the respondent points out that in the said case also recruiting agency was Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

¶6The writ petitions are therefore dismissed with liberly to the petitioners to approach the CAT including on the grounds urged in these writ pefitions. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW. J MAY 25,2011 Bs t t?

', 24 &.25$- {< IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 24+ W.P.(C) r3osl2}rr RAVINDER KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.B. Bansal, Mr. S. Mohanty, Mr. D.D. Yadav & Mr. Latit Dhamija" Advocates. *) Versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jatan $ingh, CGSC with Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastav4 Adv. AND 25+ W.P.(C) r309l20rr POOJA YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.B. Bansal, Mr. S. Mohanty, Mr. D.D. Yadav & Mr. Lalit Dhamija Advocates. Versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with IvIr. Ashish Kumar Srivastav4 Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAT ENDLAW