ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.
5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………. Diary No(s).41779/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-11-2022
in WPC No.4301/2017, 14-02-2023 in RP No.46/2023 passed by the High
Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
PRATAP SINGH BIST Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION,
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.218856/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Date : 03-11-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dr Krishan Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Samant Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shefali Jain, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable
length.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court Delhi vide impugned order
dated 22.11.2022 followed by the order passed in Review Petition
dated 14.02.2023, has declined to interfere with the selection and
appointments made in the year 2008 under the Directorate of
Education, New Delhi. The above-stated appointments were challenged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
by the petitioner purportedly in public interest by way of a writ
Date: 2023.11.04
13:00:48 IST
Reason:
petition instituted in the year 2017. The High Court, on
1
consideration of the affidavit filed by the official respondents,
has come to a categorical conclusion that the private respondents
possessed the requisite qualification and all of them were eligible
for the offered posts at the time of their appointment.
4. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that
the respondent nos.5 to 17 have already served for almost 15 years,
we are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions
against their selection or appointment. However, the second reason
assigned by the High Court, namely, that “PIL is not at all
maintainable in service matters” in view of the decision of this
Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra
and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, is a debatable issue and the said
question of law is kept open, to be gone into an appropriate case.
5. With these observations, the special leave petitions are
dismissed.
6. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)