W.P.(C) 13341/2019 & CONNECTED MATTERS $~3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 30.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 13341/2019 & CM APPL. 54188/2019, CM APPL. 36135/2021, CM APPL. 2835/2025 + W.P.(C) 112/2020 + W.P.(C) 1163/2020 + W.P.(C) 356/2020 & CM APPL. 998/2020 + W.P.(C) 601/2020 & CM APPL. 1960/2021 + W.P.(C) 2209/2022 & CM APPL. 17772/2025 PANKAJ ROHILLA AND ORS. SUDHIR SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS SAJAN PARVEEN AND ORS. SUNIL KUMAR .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Present for the petitioners: Mr.Sudir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ranbir Singh Kundu, Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Mr.Anurag Pandey, Mr.Srikant Singh & Mr.Srajan S. Kulshrestha, Advs Mr.Sachin Miglani & Ms.Sukriti Ghai, Advs Mr.Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv Present for the respondents: Mr.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Kushagra Kumar & Mr.Amit Kumar, Advs Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:01.08.2025 18:21:24 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13341/2019 & CONNECTED MATTERS Ms.Bharati Raju, SPC with Ms.Divayangi, Adv Mr.Rajendra Sahu, SPC with Mr.Sameer Sharma, Adv Ms.Aakanksha Kaul, Mr.Aman Sahani & Ms.Ashima Chopra, Advs Mr.Rajesh Kumar, SPC with Mr.Yash Narain & Ms.Pragya Yadav CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. These petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed in O.A. No. 1671/2018, titled Pankaj Rohilla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioners herein by a totally unreasoned and cryptic Order, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and In view of the law laid down by various Courts and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. B.M. Vjaya Shankar (1992) 2 SCC 206), we find that the impugned orders passed by the respondents with respect to each of the applicants cannot be interfered with.” 2. As the learned Tribunal has given no reasons for its conclusion, which is contained in paragraph 6, apart from stating that they have followed the Judgement of Supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, the Order cannot be sustained. Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:01.08.2025 18:21:24 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13341/2019 & CONNECTED MATTERS 3. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The OA shall be restored back to its original number and shall be considered afresh by the learned Tribunal on its merit. 4. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 19th August, 2025. 5. We are informed that there were a total of 34 applicants before the learned Tribunal, out of whom only 28 have challenged the Impugned Order before us in form of these Writ Petitions. The consideration of the O.A. shall, therefore, be confined by the learned Tribunal only for these 29 writ petitioners; the order having become final for the remaining 5. The above direction is being passed for the reason that the recruitment process in question was of the year 2013- 14 and the Impugned Order of the learned Tribunal is dated 31.10.2019; to reopen the matter for those who did not challenge the Order of the learned Tribunal, therefore, would not be advisable. 6. Keeping in view the above, we further request the learned Tribunal to make endeavour to dispose of the O.A. within a period of three months of its first listing before it. 7. The petitions, along with the pending applications, are disposed of. NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J JULY 30, 2025/rv/ik By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:01.08.2025 18:21:24