High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 04 DEL CK 0241

DHARMENDRA KUMAR vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Delhi High Court · Decided on 20 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SUNIL GAUR
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 3896 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 313 words

SUNIL GAUR ,J.

1.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner candidly states that this petition is essentially against order of 3rd May, 2012 vide which petitioner’s OBC

certificate stood arbitrarily cancelled. It is submitted that no show-cause notice was received prior to the cancellation of the OBC certificate. It is the

case of petitioner that the impugned cancellation of OBC certificate was not acted upon by petitioner’s employer and so, impugned cancellation

was not challenged. It is pointed out that the occasion to challenge impugned cancellation of OBC certificate arose when petitioner’s service stood

terminated vide order of 25th November, 2017 on the ground that petitioner’s OBC certificate stood cancelled on 2nd April, 2014. Infact, the

cancellation of OBC certificate is by order of 3rd May, 2012.Â

2.In light of aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to challenge impugned order of 3rd May, 2012 vide which petitioner’s OBC

certificate was cancelled. It is true that petitioner had challenged the cancellation of his OBC certificate vide O.A. No.1707/2014 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, but the said O.A. was dismissed for want of jurisdiction while clarifying that petitioner is not precluded from

challenging cancellation of his OBC certificate before the Forum having jurisdiction. Pertinently, order of 22nd December, 2017 (Annexure P-25)

records that the liberty granted to petitioner to challenge cancellation of his OBC certificate was qualified with the rider of petitioner’s employer

taking any consequential action on basis of cancellation of petitioner’s OBC certificate. Therefore, delay or laches will not stand in the way of

petitioner to assail the order of 3rd May, 2012.

3.Learned senior counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the order of 3rd May, 2012. Let it be so

done within a period of four weeks from today.

4.With aforesaid liberty, this petition and the application are dismissed as withdrawn. Â