Gajendra Singh Vs. Public Enterprise Selection Board and ors

Gajendra Singh vs Public Enterprise Selection Board and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 03, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1172258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1172258
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hima Kohli
Decided On: Dec 03, 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gajendra Singh

Advocate Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Anand Srivastava, Mr. Kshitij Khera

Respondent

Public Enterprise Selection Board and ors

Advocate Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Mr. Ankit Jain, Ms. Sara Sundaram, Ms. Chitra Sharma, Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Mr. Ajay Kalra, Mr. Bhupender Chauhan

Excerpt

.....no.5 in the memo of parties).2. on the last date of hearing, the petitioner had sought time to amend the memo of parties by impleading mr. sanjib datta as the respondent no.4 and deleting the national commission for scheduled tribes as the respondent no.5. the amended memo of parties has been filed.3. in the course of arguments, it transpires that till date, the acc has not acted on the recommendation received by it for making an appointment to the post of director((business development), gail, which is a group a board level post. it therefore appears that the present petition is premature.4. after addressing arguments at some length, mr. sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the court in future if he is aggrieved by the appointment made to the post of director (business development) in the respondent no.2/gail, and take all the grounds that may be available to him at that stage, both on facts and in law, including those raised in the present petition.5. leave, as prayed for, is granted. the petition is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending applications. december03 2014 rkb w.p.(c) 7576/2014

Full Judgment

$~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7576/2014 and CM APPL. 17868-17869/2014 GAJENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Anand Srivastava and Mr. Kshitij Khera, Advocates versus s PUBLIC ENTERPRISE SELECTION BOARD & ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Jain, Ms. Sara Sundaram and Ms. Chitra Sharma, Advocates for R-2/GAIL. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate for R-3/UOI. Mr. Bhupender Chauhan, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER

0312.2014 % 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuing a writ of certiorari, for quashing the appointment of the respondent No.4 as the Director (Business Development) in the respondent No.2/GAIL and further, for directing the respondent No.1/PESB and the respondent No.2/GAIL to adopt the recommendations made by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (initially impleaded as respondent No.5 in the memo of parties).

2. On the last date of hearing, the petitioner had sought time to amend the memo of parties by impleading Mr. Sanjib Datta as the respondent No.4 and deleting the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes as the respondent No.5. The amended memo of parties has been filed.

3. In the course of arguments, it transpires that till date, the ACC has not acted on the recommendation received by it for making an appointment to the post of Director((Business Development), GAIL, which is a Group A Board Level post. It therefore appears that the present petition is premature.

4. After addressing arguments at some length, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Court in future if he is aggrieved by the appointment made to the post of Director (Business Development) in the respondent No.2/GAIL, and take all the grounds that may be available to him at that stage, both on facts and in law, including those raised in the present petition.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending applications. DECEMBER03 2014 rkb W.P.(C) 7576/2014

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Gajendra Singh vs Public Enterprise Selection Board and ors Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Hima Kohli