Dr. Rang Lal Meena vs Raj. Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dt.27.10.2010 whereby the learned Tribunal declined to grant interim relief.

It appears from the record that petitioner was transferred vide order dt.03.09.2010 and the learned Tribunal after examination of the material on record issued notice of appeal but was not inclined to grant interim order as prayed for.

Counsel submits that the reason assigned by the learned Tribunal declining to grant interim order is not sustainable in law and the same requires interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal after examination of the material on record while calling upon the Respondents was not inclined to grant interim relief as prayed for and merely because the interim order has not been granted to the Petitioner that itself is not sufficient to interfere by this Court unless the order is arbitrary or there being an allegation imputing malice. Which is not the case of the petitioner.

However counsel submits that in the ordinary course the Appellant would never have advised to approach this Court by filing writ petition against the order declining to grant interim relief by the Tribunal but since the the appeals are not being heard expeditiously particularly relating to transfer, in absence whereof the very purpose of filing appeal becomes redundant and their right of hearing is prejudiced. He has further informed to this Court that the learned Tribunal takes only 60 matters in a day for admission and there is huge pendency of almost 1400 appeals pertaining to transfers and if in the present scenario it remains so, their statutory and legitimate right under the Act of 1976 in fact becomes totally frustrated.

This Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition under the limited scope of judicial review u/Article 226 of the Constitution so far as the order impugned herein declining to grant interim order by the learned Tribunal vide order dt.27.10.2010 is concerned, but this Court finds substance in the submission made by the counsel that once the appeal has been preferred it has to be heard expeditiously since delay caused in taking up the matter frustrates the statutory and legitimate right of the Appellant who has approached the Tribunal with the bonafide belief that his statutory right which he has availed by filing appeal at least be examined by the authority, with whom power has been vested, judiciously in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to hear the appeals for admission on day to day basis so that the Appellant who has approached may have satisfaction of his legitimate right which has been raised by filing of appeal is being examined by the Tribunal with whom power has been vested and it is also expected from the appellant to argue appeal being preferred before the Tribunal.

With these directions/observations,the petition stands disposed of.