Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Urmila Devi and Another Vs. the Union of India (Through Secretary), New Delhi and Others

Urmila Devi and Another vs The Union of India (Through Secretary), New Delhi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi Decided Nov 02, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/938870

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
OA No. 476 of 2011
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Urmila Devi and Another

Advocate For the Applicants: V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R.N. Singh, Advocate.

Respondent

The Union of India (Through Secretary), New Delhi and Others

Excerpt

(oral) 1. the claim of the applicant in this application is for compassionate appointment. subsequent to filing of this application, the applicant was in receipt of respondents’ communication dated 17.1.2011, whereby the applicant was informed of the result of consideration of his case by the screening committee, whereby his claim did not find any merit due to other cases being more deserving. the applicant, however, was also informed that his case would further be considered in the next screening committee subject to availability of vacancies for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 2. since the applicant’s case is being considered by the respondents, there is no lis between the parties which survives for consideration in the present application, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents inform him of the result of the consideration of his case by the subsequent meeting of the screening committee, to which respondents’ counsel does not have any objection. as a matter of fact, as and when such meetings are held, the results thereof would be informed to the concerned in due course. the applicant will, however, have liberty to seek redressal for any further grievance remains. 3. the original application is disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

(ORAL)

1. The claim of the applicant in this Application is for compassionate appointment. Subsequent to filing of this Application, the applicant was in receipt of respondents’ communication dated 17.1.2011, whereby the applicant was informed of the result of consideration of his case by the Screening Committee, whereby his claim did not find any merit due to other cases being more deserving. The applicant, however, was also informed that his case would further be considered in the next Screening Committee subject to availability of vacancies for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

2. Since the applicant’s case is being considered by the respondents, there is no lis between the parties which survives for consideration in the present Application, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents inform him of the result of the consideration of his case by the subsequent meeting of the Screening Committee, to which respondents’ counsel does not have any objection. As a matter of fact, as and when such meetings are held, the results thereof would be informed to the concerned in due course. The applicant will, however, have liberty to seek redressal for any further grievance remains.

3. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial