Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

'You Are Challenging Appointment Made In Year 1986? The Lady Has Retired In 2021': Delhi High Court Imposes 15K Cost

Akshita Saxena
2 Dec 2021 10:45 AM GMT
You Are Challenging Appointment Made In Year 1986? The Lady Has Retired In 2021: Delhi High Court Imposes 15K Cost
x

"A lady who is appointed in the year 1986, retired in the year 2021, you are challenging her appointment?" sternly remarked the Delhi High Court today and imposed Rs. 15,000 cost on an appellant. The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that not only the plea suffered from extreme delay but also appeared to be motivated. The Appellant, the...

"A lady who is appointed in the year 1986, retired in the year 2021, you are challenging her appointment?" sternly remarked the Delhi High Court today and imposed Rs. 15,000 cost on an appellant.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that not only the plea suffered from extreme delay but also appeared to be motivated.

The Appellant, the nephew of Respondent no. 6 namely Kamlesh Tiwari, had preferred an appeal against an order of the single Judge refusing to entertain a petition against the latter's appointment to the post of Office Superintendent (Class IV) in Railways.

He submitted that at the time of appointment, the qualification for appointment to the said post was 8th pass.

It was alleged that a forged certificate of 10th standard was submitted by the Respondent no. 6 to the Railway authority and thus, her appointment must be cancelled.

At the outset, noting that the Appellant was a relative of the Respondent no. 6, the Bench was of the opinion that the instant proceedings were initiated following a family feud.

"He's a relative of the Respondent. These proceedings are motivated from a property dispute or something. This is not a forum to settle private scores," the Bench remarked orally.

In its order, the Bench stated,

"There is allegation of forgery and that too, directly in a writ which was preferred in the year 2020, i.e., after her appointment. The petition was filed after approximately 34years. Thus, there is a long delay in filing the petition. There is no explanation for delay.

Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that bear assertions in court of law have no value. Forgery cannot be established on the basis of annexures. To establish forgery, cogent and convincing evidence has to be led in concerned trial court. In writ petition, we are not inclined to decide the allegations of forgery. Forgery has far reaching ramifications under criminal law also.

Moreover, as submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent no. 6 has already retired in July 2021. Hence also, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition."

Finally, expressing agreement with the order passed by the single Judge, the Court dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 15,000 to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, within 4 weeks.

Case Title: Subhash Chand v. Secretary, Ministry of Railways & Ors.

Next Story