Partly allowed

Kuldeep v. the Directorate General, Crpf

Delhi HC16 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/7774/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition challenging non-issuance of appointment despite the petitioner being shown as appointed in the list. It directed the respondent to expedite verification of candidature by CFSL and decide the fate pending the report.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to pursue the matter with CFSL and send a report to decide the fate of the petitioner within three months.

Kuldeep Vs the Directorate General, Crpf — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~18

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 7774/2015 KULDEEP .... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. S. Bindra, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CRPF ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ripu Dhaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 16.02.2016

¶9

CM APPLN.15359/2015 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

W.P.(C) 7774/2015

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

¶13

inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent-CRPF to appoint him as a Constable (GD), pursuant to the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.

¶14

Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the year 2013, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the Recruitment Notice issued by the respondent and he had cleared the written examination on 10^th January, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared in the Medical Examination

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) 7774/2015

¶17

and had cleared the same. When the list of successful candidates was published by the respondent, it transpired that petitioner had secured 2941 rank and was shown as appointed in the CRPF. However, the petitioner did not receive any intimation from the respondent for several months and finally, was compelled to file the present petition.

¶18

Notice was issued on the present petition on 17^th August, 2015, returnable for 12^th October, 2015. The respondent was directed to file a counter affidavit, which has still not been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he had filed an affidavit on 5^th February, 2016, with a copy to the other side. He hands over a copy of the affidavit that states that the Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad, U.P., had vide letter dated 10^th November, 2014, forwarded the petitioner’s dossiers along with 975 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 respondent had forwarded the dossier of the petitioner and the other 975 candidates to the CFSL, Hyderabad on

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

W.P.(C) 7774/2015

¶21

10^th September, 2015 for further examination and a report.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the report

¶23

from the CFSL, Hyderabad is still awaited and as soon as the report is received, the respondent shall process the case of the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates, in accordance with law.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to pursue the matter with the CFSL and on obtaining a report, decide the fate of the petitioner.

¶25

CFSL, Hyderabad is directed to expedite its report and forward the same to the respondent preferably within three months from today so that it can take a decision with regard to the candidature of the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates at the earliest, in accordance with law.

¶26

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶27

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 16, 2016

¶29

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

W.P.(C) 7774/2015

Kuldeep v. the Directorate General, Crpf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep v. the Directorate General, Crpf

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

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Bijwasan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) & Ors.

Moti Kumari Vs Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

Abhishek Prakash Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi, India & Anr.

Mustajab Ali Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Pan Parag India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)Delhi & Anr.

Kothari Product Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs Export Inland Container Depot Tuglakabad New Delhi & Anr.

Npt Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Accountant Girish Bagdi Vs Prinicipal Commiissioner of Customs Icd (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Mahipal Dabas & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishan Kant Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shobha Kumari Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nilam Kumari Vs Union of India & Anr.

Deepak Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Group Capt (Dr) B S Nayyar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narender Reddy Vs Union of India & Ors.