The Court dismissed a writ petition where petitioners sought basic training for paramilitary posts advertised in 2011. The petition was rejected due to unexplained inordinate delay and the availability of no vacancy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~5
YOGESH SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.C. Bhatt, Advocate
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. G.C. George, Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R % 11.05.2016
inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent No.1 /SSC to permit them to undergo the basic training for the post of Constable (GD) in
CAPFs and Rifleman (GD) under respondents No.2 to 5/ BSF/CISF/CRPF/SSB, pursuant to an advertisement issued in February 2011.
regard to fact that the posts in question were advertised in February
2011 and the results were declared as long back as in November
W.P.(C) 1624/2016 Page 1 of 2
2011, it was deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners in the first instance to file their affidavits explaining the unreasonable delay in approaching the Court for relief. However, the said affidavits have not been filed despite two opportunities granted in that regard.
would be a futile exercise to entertain the present petition for the reason that the posts advertised in February 2011 have already been filled up and there is no vacancy available.
application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 11, 2016 ap
W.P.(C) 1624/2016 Page 2 of 2
Yogesh Singh and Ors.
The Union of India and Ors.
Hima Kohli
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
