UNION OF INDIA & ANR. vs SESETTI MAHIDHARNATH

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 2643/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC –UOI with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Mr. Yash Narain, Advs. versus SESETTI MAHIDHARNATH .....Respondent Through: Respondent through VC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 12559/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2643/2025 and CM APPL. 12558/2025 2. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 3868/2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) titled as Sesetti Mahidharnath v. Union of India and Anr., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions :- “12. For the aforementioned reasons, the O.A. is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIJAYA W.P.(C) 2643/2025 Page 1 of 3 LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:02.04.2025 16:20:58 of the applicant for appointment to the suitable post as per his merit in CGLE- 2016, after taking into account the marks awarded to him in Tier-Ill Examination as per Annexure P/1 coupled with the marks awarded in other levels, if he is found otherwise suitable and eligible, against the vacancy kept vacant for him. However, it is made clear that he will get the benefits, such as, salary, seniority etc. prospectively, i.e. from the date of his appointment only.” 3. The respondent had virtually appeared before this Court on 10.03.2025 and stated that he was not interested in pursuing this matter. He was asked to email a for