eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

Supreme Court Judgment

created Aug 3rd 2022, 15:38 by Navneet Sahu


2


Rating

212 words
19 completed
00:00
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3510 of 2012 and the order dated 05.09.2014
passed in Review Petition No. 195 of 2014 in Writ Petition No. 3510 of
2012, the Delhi Transport Corporation has preferred the present
appeals.
1.1 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed
the writ petition and directed the appellant to appoint the private
respondent herein original writ petitioner in the writ petition namely,
1
Sandeep Kaushik as Driver with seniority as per his merit position
without any back wages.
2. Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) has vehemently
submitted that in the present case, the appellant sent a requisition to the
respondent No. 2 for recruitment of drivers as far as back in the year
2007. It is submitted that the advertisement was issued to fill up the post
of drivers in the month of January, 2008 and thereafter 14 years have
passed and there are changed circumstances due to which now it is not
possible to reinstate/appoint the private respondent herein original writ
petitioner on the post of driver.  

saving score / loading statistics ...