Delhi High Court - Orders
State Of West Bengal vs Gandharva Rathore & Ors on 26 March, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4048/2021
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
versus
GANDHARVA RATHORE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K.Gupta, Senior Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms. Riya
Dhingra, Advocate & Mr. Jatin Puniyani,
G.P. for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 26.03.2021 C.M. No.12232/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4048/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 4th December, 2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing OA No.3579/2019 preferred by the respondent no.1 impugning non-grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for change of her cadre in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from that of West-Bengal to that of Himachal Pradesh, to an officer of which cadre the respondent no.1 has been married; vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to issue W.P.(C) 4048/2021 Page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 11:20:11 NOC/consent for cadre transfer of the respondent no.1 from state of West Bengal to Himachal Pradesh.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that though the judgments of the Courts/Tribunal relied upon in the impugned order cannot be disputed but mandamus ought not to have been issued and at best a direction to the petitioner to re-consider in terms of the observations ought to have been issued.
5. It is not as if CAT was not aware of the aforesaid position in law. In paragraph 12 of the impugned order, CAT has given reasons for not following the said procedure.
6. We have thus asked the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner is willing to favourably consider the grant of NOC to the respondent no.1.
7. The counsel for the petitioner states that owing to the state election underway in the petitioner's state of West Bengal, the Model Code of Conduct is in force and decision can be taken thereafter only.
8. We have also heard the Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 appearing on advance notice.
9. On the aforesaid assurance, list on 17th May, 2021.
10. We expect that the petitioner to that date report to this Court its own decision in terms of the observations in the impugned order.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 26, 2021/ak W.P.(C) 4048/2021 Page 2 of 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 11:20:11