VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) The prayer made in the applications is allowed. Judgments annexures P-13 and P-14 passed by Delhi High Court are taken on record.
(2.) The prayer made in the applications is to dispose of the main writ petition as according to the learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner, the matter is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of W.P.(C) No. 6372 of 2003, decided on May 31,2005, S.K.Rahi Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards, (annexure P-13). It has further been stated in the application that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1682-84 and 1689 of 2005, decided on February 6, 2006. Notice of the applications to the learned counsel for the nonapplicants. Mr. R.S. Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants accepts notice.
(3.) From the perusal of the judgments Annexure P-13 and P-14, it is apparent that the controversy in question is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements rendered by Delhi High Court. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants has not been able to point out any point of distinction between the controversy involved in the present writ petition and the decision rendered by Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgments. Consequently, the main writ petition itself is disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.(C) No. 6372 of 2003, decided on May 31,2005, S.K.Rahi Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards, (annexure P-13). C.M. as well as the main writ petition stand disposed of.;