ITEM NO.25 SOURT NO.8 SECTION XIVSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OE PROCEEDTNGS

Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) . . . . . . /2OLscC No (s) . 396/20L5

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 2L/og/20L4i-r wPC No. 2224/20L4 passed uy ite-"igi cor=t 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 SLp andSLP and office report)

MR. JUSTICE EAKKTR MOHAMED TBRAHIM KALIFUTLAMR. JUSTTCE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Mrs. Rani Chhabra,Adv.

Respondent (s)

c/deIay in refiling

Date : L9/0L/20L5 This petition was ca11ed on for hearing today.CORAM :

HON I BLEIION I BLE

Eor Petitioner (s)

For Respondent(s) Ms. Paromita Majumdar,Adv.For Mr. Ankur Mittal,Adv.

the counsel the Court made the followingORDER

UPON hearing

Delay condoned.The Division Bench of the High Court whire setting aside the

order of the central Administrative Tribunal made it clear thatsince the Rules do not, provide- for grant of grace marks, thedirection of the Tribunal was i11egaI and cannot be sustained.L'arned counser for the petitioners, by referring to the affidavitof the applicant filed before r.he Tribunal, pointed out such grantof grace marks against the post of JAo, part-rr Examj_nat,ions of2000, 2003 & 20a7. since, it is tacitly admitted that there is noSigiature Nol Vediied

&1ily.-?,It=t"" in the Rules or any other proceedings for grrant of such

li'jlffislrks, reliance placed upon such illegality committed in the pastcannot be a ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal.w,

l*-, therefore, do not._ uf,-vf,_sl-on Bench

r:;spondent_Statemarks i.n future.

find any scopeof the High

not to violate

to interfereCourt. [Ie

the Rules by

with the order of theonly direct the

granting such grace

With the above observations andpetition stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA PRASAD)COURT IIASTER

directions, the special leave

(SHARDA r(APOOR)COURT I4ASTER

2