- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 13 September 2011
- Bench
- Sanjiv Khanna
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 6628/2011
Judgment
SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 13,2011 NA W.P.(C) Nos.6526 & 6627-30/2011
Case details
Parties and counsel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dateofdecision;13"' September,2011. WRITPETITIONrCTVTT.)N0.6526/2nit iqbal khatri and ors Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sv: Advocatewith Mr. Ankur Garg and Mr. Sougat Ganguly, Advocates. versus EMPLOYEESSTATEINSURANCECORPORATIONAND ANR Respondent Through Ms. RekhaPalliand Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. WRIT PETITION rCIVIT.^NQ. 6627/2011 DHEERAJ TANWAR Petitioner Through Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Ankur Garg and Mr. Sougat Ganguly, Advocates. versus ESIC AND ANR Respondent Through Ms. RekhaPalliand Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. WRIT PETITION rCIVIL^ N0.6628/2ni 1 SATPAL.GAHLOT Petitioner Through Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Ankur Garg and Mr. Sougat Ganguly, Advocates. W.P.(C) Nos.6526&6627-30/2011 versus ESIC AND ANR Kespondent Through Ms. RekhaPalliand Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. WRITPETITIONrCTVTT.)NO. 6629/?.ni1 BIJENDERSINGH Through Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Ankur Garg and Mr. Sougat Ganguly, Advocates. versus ESIC AND ANR Througli Ms. RekhaPalliand Ms, Punam Singh, Advocates. ^RIT PETITIONrCIVIL^ND.fi/iWnnil SAMARSINGH ' Through Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Ankur Garg and Mr. Sougat Ganguly, Advocates. versus ESIC AND ANR Respondent Through Ms. RekhaPalH and Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. CORAM; HON^BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. WhetherReportersoflocal papersmay be allowedto see thejudgmenf? Yes 2. To bereferredto the Reporteror not? Yes. 3. Whetherthejudgmentshouldbe reportedin the Digest? Yes. W.P.(C) Nos.6526&6627-30/2011 pgge2of 13 2-- DIPAK MISRA, CJ.: Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30"' August, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the tribunal') in four original applications preferred under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As the tribunal has disposed of the original applications by a common order, we propose to dispose of these writ petitions by a singular order. 2. The respondent, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), published an advertisementin May 2004 for filling up the posts of Nursing Orderly. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that the number of posts are 75. The bifurcation of posts was 38 (unreserved), (Scheduled Castes) and 26 (Other Backward Classes). The .'a petitionersappliedforthe saidpost inthe OBC categoryas they belong to the Jat community which falls in the OBC category as per the list ) under the Governmentof National Capital Territory of Delhi. They were selected in the said category and accordingly appointed. 3. ESIC, by order dated 30^ May, 2011, terminatedthe servicesof the petitioners with immediate effect on the ground that the petitioners could not have been considered in the OBC category as the Jat W.P.(C) Nos.6526 &6627-30/2011 communitydoes not find place in the OBC list prepared by the Central Government. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the petitionersknockedat the door of the tribunaland thetribunal,relying on its decision in Shyam & Others Vs. EmployeesState Insurance Corporation Ltd. & Others (TA-38/2010)decided on December, 2010 came to hold that as the petitioners were not covered in the category of OBC list prepared by the Union of India, their cases could not have been consideredin the said categoryby the ESIC and there being a fiandamentalflaw in the appointment,the order of termination could not be interfered witli. Expressing such a view, the tribunal dismissed the original applications. 5. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitionerin W.P.(C)No.6526/2011,and Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the petitionerin other writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the following contentions:- (i) The tribunalhas failed to take note of the languageemployedin theadvertisementinasmuchas the advertisementdoes notspecifyfrom which categorycertif
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.