Disposed

Mukesh Chandra v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC23 May 2016W.P.(C)/4653/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners applied for Constable (GD) posts, cleared exams, and were declared medically fit but never received appointment letters. After serving legal notices without response, this court issued a one-week order directing the Staff Selection Commission to respond to the notices within four weeks or face further intervention.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Respondent No.1/SSC to consider and respond to legal notices served by petitioners within four weeks.

Mukesh Chandra Vs Union of India & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~6, 8 & 16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4650/2016 & CM No.19305/2016, W.P.(C) 4653/2016 & CM No.19308/2016 and W.P.(C) 3036/2016

¶4

SAAJAN THAPA ..... Petitioner MUKESH CHANDRA ..... Petitioner DINESH NATH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through : Mr. B.C. Bhatt, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Poonam Kalia, Advocate, CGSC with Mr. Arpit Shukla, Advocate in W.P.(C) 4650/2016. Mr. Prasanta Varma with Ms. Prativa Varma and Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocates in W.P.(C) 4653/2016. Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Chanana and Ms. Priyanshu Sinha, Advocates in W.P.(C) 3036/2016.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶10

O R D E R % 23.05.2016

¶11

The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying inter

¶12

alia for directions to the respondent No.1/Staff Selection Commission to

¶13

issue letters of selection in their favour for undergoing training for the post

¶14

of Constable (GD) in the BSF/CISF/SSB/CRPF/Assam Rifles.

¶15

WPC No.4650/2016 & connected matters

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had applied for being considered for the post of Constable (GD) in February, 2011 pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.1/SCC on behalf of the remaining respondents in the daily newspapers. The petitioners claim that they had cleared the written examination and had also appeared in the medical test and were found medically fit. However, they were never issued appointment letters by the respondents. He submits that after waiting patiently for a long time, in the year 2015, the petitioners had served legal notices on the respondents calling upon them to issue letters of selection for being recruited to the subject post in the Central Armed Forces, as mentioned above, but to no avail.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that despite legal notices served on the respondents, none of them have responded to the pleas taken by them, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petitions at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. Directions are issued to the respondent No.1/SSC to consider and respond to the legal notices served on it by each of the petitioners and enclosed with the petitions, within four weeks from today. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent

¶19

WPC No.4650/2016 & connected matters

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

No.1/SCC, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶22

The writ petitions are disposed of, along with the pending applications.

¶23

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶24

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶25

MAY 23, 2016 sk/mk

¶26

WPC No.4650/2016 & connected matters

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Mukesh Chandra v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Chandra v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Jay Dee Exports Vs Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dileep Wangoo & Ors. Vs Insurance Authority & Ors.

Jay Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

Harkrishan Das Nijhawan Vs Regional Passport Office Delhi & Ors.

Valley Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (General)

Shikha Seth Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

Sukhdev Singh Lall Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mandeep Kumar Joon Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

T.R. Dagar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Puran Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.