Food Corporatoin Of India & others vs Anuj Vij

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is filed by the respondents in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1408 of 2016, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 07.04.2017.

The respondent-writ petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi). He was required to file a one year experience certificate of translation from Hindi to English and vice-versa. In the experience certificate dated 20.02.2015, submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner, it was stated that he had worked in the capacity of 'Hindi Translator' from 01.01.2014 to 15.02.2015.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondent-writ petitioner's suitability was adjudged; he was found meritorious; however, the appointment letter was not issued to the respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa; the candidates, in Paper-IV, were required to translate two passages, one each from Hindi to English and vice-versa, and two essays each in Hindi and English; the duration of the examination was 90 minutes; a candidate, who had secured higher marks in Paper-IV, was to be placed above the other candidates; the petitioner was placed above the other candidates on his having secured higher marks in Paper-IV; the petitioner was informed, by proceedings dated 03.08.2016, that the experience certificate attached by him indicated his experience of Hindi translation, and not vice-versa; the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach; and the petitioner had undertaken the translation of Hindi to English, as well as English to Hindi, and had qualified in the same. The learned Single Judge declared that the petitioner had the requisite qualification as laid down in the advertisement published in the year 2015. The order, impugned in the Writ Petition, was set-aside, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the appellant-respondents were directed to offer an appointment letter to him within three weeks from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

While Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, has put forth elaborate submission on merits, the fact remains that an identical question came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court. In the very same process of selection, one Ms. Rimjhim stood at Sl. No.6, whereas the respondent-writ petitioner stood at Sl. No.32. Both of them were disqualified for the very same reason. Ms. Rimjhim invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court; and a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, by its order in LPA no.383 of 2018 dated 03.08.2018, allowed the appeal, set-aside the action of the respondents in rejecting the appellant's case, and directed them to issue an appointment letter in her favour, if all other conditions stood satisfied. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the appellants herein filed Civil Appeal No.3600 of 2019 and the Supreme Court, by its order dated 09.04.2019, dismissed the civil appeal.

Since the order of the Delhi High Court, in LPA No.383 of 2019 dated 03.08.2018, has merged with the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3600 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019, the law declared by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, would require the order under appeal to be affirmed.

Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that, against the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3600 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019, the appellants herein have filed Review Application No.17609 of 2019 on 08.05.2019.

The order of the Supreme Court, as referred to hereinabove, is still in force, and is binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that a review has been preferred thereagainst, would not result in the said judgment of the Supreme Court ceasing to have binding effect.

We see no reason, therefore, to take a different view merely because the appellants herein have filed a review petition before the Supreme Court. Following the law declared by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3600 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019, this appeal is also liable to be, and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.