ITEM

NO.25

SOURT

SUPREME

NO.8

SECTION XIV

COURT

RECORD

OE

OF INDIA

PROCEEDTNGS

Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)

. . . . . . /2OLs
cC No (s) . 396/20L5
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and
i-r wPC No. 2224/20L4 passed uy ite-"igi cor=torder dated 2L/og/20L4
of Delhi ar N. Delhi)
CHANDRESH KUMAR TRIPATHI AND ORS
petitioner(s)
VERSUS

CqATRI{AN CUM CHTEF

M. D .

AND

ORS

(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing

office report)

SLP and

Respondent (s)

SLp and

c/deIay in refiling

Date : L9/0L/20L5 This petition was ca11ed on for

hearing today.
CORAM

HON I BLE

IION I BLE

MR. JUSTICE EAKKTR MOHAMED TBRAHIM KALIFUTLA

MR. JUSTTCE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Eor Petitioner (s)

Mrs. Rani Chhabra,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Ms. Paromita Majumdar,Adv.

For Mr. Ankur Mittal,Adv.

UPON

hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Delay condoned.
The Division Bench of the High Court whire setting
aside the
order of the central Administrative Tribunal made it
clear that
since the Rules do not, provide- for grant of grace marks,
the
direction of the Tribunal was i11egaI and cannot be
sustained.
L'arned counser for the petitioners, by referring to the
affidavit
of the applicant filed before r.he Tribunal, pointed out
such grant
of grace marks against the post of JAo, part-rr Examj_nat,ions
of
2000, 2003 & 20a7. since, it is tacitly admitted that
there is no
in the Rules or any other proceedings for grrant of such
&1ily.-?,It=t""
li'jlffislrks, reliance placed upon such illegality committed
in the past
cannot be a ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal.w,
Sigiature Nol Vediied

l*-, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the order
of the
._ uf,-vf,_sl-on Bench
of the High Court. [Ie only
direct
the
r:;spondent_State not to violate
the Rules by granting such grace
marks i.n future.
With the above observations and directions,
the special leave
petition stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA PRASAD)
COURT IIASTER

(SHARDA r(APOOR)
COURT I4ASTER