Disposed

Raj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/11326/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-appointment as Constables (GD) in CRPF after clearing exams. Court disposed of petition with directions to CFSLs to expedite forensic reports on identity verification to decide candidatures.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents and CFSLs to expedite forensic reports on identity verification within three months for deciding the candidatures of petitioners.

Raj & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~6.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11326/2015 and CM APPL. 29709/2015 RAJ & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Shivam Chanana, Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocates and Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvy Officer and Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R

¶6

% 17.03.2016

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents/CRPF to appoint them as Constables (GD), pursuant to the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.

¶8

Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year 2013, the petitioners had applied for the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the Recruitment Notice issued by the respondents and they had cleared the written examination on 28.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners had appeared in the Medical Examination and had cleared the same. When the list of successful candidates was published by the respondents, it transpired that the petitioners were shown as appointed in W.P.(C) 11326/2015 Page 1 of 3

¶9

the CRPF. However, the petitioners did not receive any intimation from the respondents for several months and finally, were compelled to file the present petition.

¶10

Notice was issued on the present petition on 07.12.2015, returnable for 05.02.2016. The respondents were directed to file their respective counter affidavits, which have still not been filed. Today, counsel for the respondents states that he need not file the counter affidavit.

¶11

It is informed by the counsel for the respondents that vide letter dated 28.08.2015, CRPF had forwarded the dossiers of 25 petitioners along with 981 other dossiers of suspected cases of impersonation for appointment to the Group Centre at Allahabad with the remarks that during the general scrutiny of the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) and the signatures of these candidates, there appeared some discrepancies, which were required to be verified. In the light of the said opinion, the respondents had forwarded the dossier of a total of 1006 candidates to the CFSLs, at Hyderabad, Pune, Guwahati and Kolkata between November, 2015 and January, 2016, for further examination and a report.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reports from some of the above CFSL centres are likely to be received in the near future and many are still awaited. He states that as soon as the reports are received, the respondents shall process the cases of the petitioners and other similarly placed candidates, in accordance with law.

¶13

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to pursue the matter with the concerned CFSLs and on W.P.(C) 11326/2015 Page 2 of 3

¶14

obtaining the reports, decide the fate of each of the petitioners.

¶15

The CFSL centres noted above are directed to expedite their reports and forward the same to the respondents preferably within three months from today so that they may take a decision with regard to the candidature of the petitioners and other similarly placed candidates at the earliest, in accordance with law.

¶16

HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 17, 2016
rkb/ap

¶17

Page 3 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 11326/2015

Raj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Veetee Fine Foods Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Shyam Advertisor Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Suresh Kumar

R.D. Malik Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Government of NCT Delhi Vs Suresh Chand Khanna

Pradeep Kumar Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Rohde & Schswarz P.Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

Mtnl Staff Union & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Rajan Kala Vs UOI & Ors.

Sudhir Singh Teotia Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vijender Singh Yadav F/O Gaurav Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Head Constable Bhoop Ram Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Gauri Shankar Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Hc (T) Pradeep Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.