s-r2 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 3287l20LO DELHIJAL BOARD ....' Petitioner Through: Mr.sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nishakant Pandey, Advocate. VCTSUS KUTUB SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents - Through: . Mr.S.R.Singh, Senior Advocate with j' "Mr.Gulab Chandra, Advocate' w.P.(c) 3379|2OLO i"i ADARSH KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.S.Janani, Advocate. VCTSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS ....' Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nishakant Pandey, Advocate for DJB. Mr.S.R.Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gulab Chandra, Advocate for R-2 to 13 r t\ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG ORDER % 26.08.2010 1. Since we are remanding the matter to the Tribunal we refrain from penning a lengthy decision. WP(C) No.32B7/2010 & 3379/2010 page 1' of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified hI F 2. Our reasons for remanding the matter to the Tribunal are two fold. 3. Firstly, vide impugned order dated 5.2.20L0 the Tribunal has expressly said that it would not be interfering with the seniority list dated 19.8 .20Q2 since persons likely to be affected by the decision by the Tribunal were not impleaded; but relief has been granted to the applicants of TA No.1LgLlzOO9 which directly affects the seniority of Assistant Engineers (Civil). 4. Our second reason is that there is no definite finding by the Tribunal that the applicants of TA No.LLgIl2009 were given current duty charge assignment with respect to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as per vacancies falling in the quota for SC/ST candidates. 5, Whereas Delhi Jal Board and the writ petitioners of WP(C) No.3379 I2OLO allege that when the applicants of TA No.1191/2009 were given current duty charge there existed no vacancy in the promotion quota for SC/ST candidates, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants of TA No.1191/2009 refutes the said decision. 6. We note that the impugned order has not worked out the vacancy position and has not reflected that there existed vacancies in the promotion quota falling to the share of SC/ST candidates. 7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversY. 8. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 5.2.20L0 allowing TA No.1191 12009. WP(C) No.3287/2010 6( 3379/2010 page 2 of 3 t- t i 9. We restore TA No.119112009 for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. We further direct that the writ petitioners of WP(C) No.3379 I2OLQ stand impleaded as respondents No.2 to 9 in TA N o.1 I9Ll20Qg . 10. Either party may file amended memo of parties before the Tribunal. ? 11. The Tribunal shall, decide TA No.119U2009. 12. No costs. 13. DASTI. AUGUST dk 26,20LO after impleading as aforesaid, re- =Fl..^sslst PRADEEP rrrnll off,ryoc, J. t- , a GARG, J. WP(C) No.3287/2010 & 3379/2010 page 3 of3