Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 379 (DEL)

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-02-28

B.N.CHATURVEDI, MUKUL MUDGAL

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the UPSC and appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 19. 3. 2004 passed in OA. 2978/03. By the said order of the C. A. T. which was impugned in the companion writ petition which directed that the uncommunicated acrs of where there was downgradation should be ignored while considering the petitioner s claim for promotion. ( 3 ) TO appreciate the grievance canvassed by the petitioner, it would be worthwhile to extract the prayer made in the writ petition. "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court be pleased to: (a) Issuance a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing/setting aside part (b) of the para 25 of the judgment dated 19/03. 2004 in O. A. No. 2978/2003 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal wherein it is directed, ". . . . . for the reasons which we have recorded in the preceding paragraphs, we direct that uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports, where there is a downgrading in the annual Confidential Reports of the applicant, should be ignored while considering his claim of promotion. . . . . " ( 4 ) IN so far as disputes on merits are concerned, in a companion writ petition No. 4620/05, the Union of India has already withdrawn its writ petition and granted the appointment, which was the subject matter of the dispute, to the respondent, Vinod Kumar Mishra. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this court, UPSC, Shri Jagat Singh, has submitted that the UPSC only considers the acr and sends its recommendation but the final appointment is to be made by the appointment Committee of the Cabinet. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show us any part of the judgment which affects the UPSC or comments about its functioning. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any such part of the judgment. Even the part of the judgment in para 25 of the writ petition which is extracted in the prayer (a) of the writ petition has no bearing whatsoever on the functioning and conduct of the UPSC. ( 5 ) THE main dispute already stands settled between the Union of India and the respondent. Even the part of the judgment in para 25 of the writ petition which is extracted in the prayer (a) of the writ petition has no bearing whatsoever on the functioning and conduct of the UPSC. ( 5 ) THE main dispute already stands settled between the Union of India and the respondent. Accordingly, even after considering the plea raised by the petitioner in prayer (a) of the writ petition, which we have extracted above, we see no reason why UPSC could be in the least aggrieved by the judgment of the cat as no comment whatsoever has been made in respect of the UPSC. Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed. The writ petition and all pending applications stand disposed of. .