Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Keshav Kaushik vs State Of Haryana . on 9 December, 2014
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Madan B. Lokur, A.K. Sikri
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10857-10858 OF 2013
KESHAV KAUSHIK ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10859 OF 2013
KESHAV KAUSHIK ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Learned counsel, Shri Baldev Singh, appearing for the appellant in these appeals, would inform us that the issues raised in these appeals are squarely covered by the observations made by this Court in “Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2014.12.20 11:33:06 IST and Others” (2012) 6 SCC 502 and “Deepak Aggarwal Reason: vs. Keshav Kaushik and Others” (2013) 5 SCC 277. 2
2. The submission so made by the learned counsel is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Following the observations made by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case (supra) and Deepak Aggarwal's case (supra), these civil appeals are also disposed of in the same terms, observations, conditions and directions.
..............CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) ................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.222 OF 2008 RISHI GARG & ANR ..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. Shri Vishal Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would inform us that the issues raised in this petition is squarely covered by the observations made by this Court in “Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and Others” (2012) 6 SCC 502 and “Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik and Others” (2013) 5 SCC 277.
2. The submission so made by the learned counsel is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
2
3. Following the observations made by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case (supra) and Deepak Aggarwal's case (supra), this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, observations and directions.
................CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ..................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) ..................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.256 OF 2010 KESHAV KAUSHIK PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 raising an issue pertaining to the eligibility of candidates seeking appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in National Capital Territory of Delhi. The writ petitioner has already been selected and appointed as a judicial officer in the State of Rajasthan. For reasons best known to the petitioner, he has questioned the select list published by the High Court of Delhi dated 05.06.2010. A perusal of the writ petition has left this Court surprised that despite being a judicial 2 officer appointed in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner has challenged the final select list published by the High Court of Delhi for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services to the effect, inter alia, that his candidature be recommended for appointment.
2. Be that as it may, the learned senior counsel, Shri V.V.S. Rao, appearing for the petitioner, would seek permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before the High Court. We permit him to do so.
Ordered accordingly.
................CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ..................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) ..................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.367 OF 2010 NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE NO.75 OF 2011 NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 367 of 2010 and Transferred Case No. 75 of 2011 has challenged the selection process for appointment to Delhi Higher Judicial Services and Haryana Superior Judicial Services, respectively.
2
2. We are informed by Shri Mohd. Irshad Hanif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the said petitioner is now serving as a judicial officer in the State of West Bengal. If that is so, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the transferred case do not require our consideration and decision.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition and transferred case are disposed of as unnecessary.
Ordered Accordingly.
................CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ..................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) ..................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.76 OF 2011 SURENDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN ..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.77 OF 2011 SURENDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN ..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Transferred Case (C) No.76 of 2011 Heard Shri Surender Pal Singh Chauhan, who appeared in-person.
The transferred case is dismissed. Transferred Case (C) No.77 of 2011 This is a transferred case transferred from the High Court of Delhi.
Heard Shri Surender Pal Singh Chauhan, who appeared in-person.
2
In our view, this matter can now be decided by the High Court in view of the decisions of this Court in “Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and Others” (2012) 6 SCC 502 and “Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik and Others” (2013) 5 SCC 277.
Accordingly, we transfer this writ petition back to the Delhi High Court for early disposal of the matter.
The Registry is directed to transfer the record of the case to the High Court of Delhi without any delay.
Ordered accordingly.
................CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ..................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) ..................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10860 OF 2013 DHIRINDRA CHOPRA ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R
1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of “Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and Others” (2012) 6 SCC 502 and “Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik and Others” (2013) 5 SCC 277.
2. Following the observations made by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case (supra) and Deepak Aggarwal's case (supra), this civil appeal is disposed of in the same terms, observations, and directions.
...............CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) .................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) .................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
-1- ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10857-10858 OF 2013 KESHAV KAUSHIK Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (For Final Disposal) WITH W.P.(C) No. 222/2008 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 256/2010 With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 367/2010
(With appln.(s) for ad interim orders, exemption from filing O.T.) T.C.(C) No. 75/2011 T.C.(C) No. 76/2011 T.C.(C) No. 77/2011 C.A. No. 10859/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 10860/2013 C.A. No. 10861/2013 (With Office Report) Date: 09/12/2014 These matters were called on for hearing today.
Contd..
-2-CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s)/ Petitioner(s) Mr. V.V.S. Rao,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Baldev Singh, Adv. Ms. Vijayshree Patnaik, Adv. Mr. Govind Narayan,Adv. Mr. V. Sushant, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv.
Mr. Vishal Yadav, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif,Adv.
Mr. Surender Pal Singh Chauhan, In-person Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aroma Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. Vikas Goel, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhir Talwar, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia,Adv. Mr. Anish Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv,. Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tamaliwad, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. For M/s. J.S. Wad & Co.
Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Vivekta Singh, Adv. For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.
Contd..-3-
Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Annam D. N. Rao,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Yaswardhan Diwari, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv. Ms. Vaishali R., Adv. Ms. G. Swathi Pathgotri, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. T.V.S.R. Sreyas, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. Suksham, Adv.
Mr. Shalinder Saini, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv.
Ms. S. Janani,Adv.
Ms. Shiel Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Rakhi Ray, Adv.
Contd..-4-
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A.Nos. 10857-10858/2013, 10859/2013, 10860/2013 W.P.(C)Nos.222/2008, 256/2010, 367/2010, T.C.(C) Nos.75/2011, 76/2011 and 77/2011 The above mentioned matters are disposed of in terms of the signed orders.C.A. No. 10861/2013
This civil appeal is detagged and be listed in usual course.
Permission is granted to the parties file additional documents, if any.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi) Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar (Six signed orders are placed on the file.)