Petitioner complained about delays in filling reserved OBC vacancies in BRO. Court directed respondents to reply to a legal notice within four weeks and fill remaining vacancies within three months.
Direction to reply to legal notice within four weeks and fill remaining vacancies of Administrative Officers within three months.
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.
$~4
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
O R D E R 11.02.2016
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 861/2016
Reservations made for various categories was detailed in the said advertisement and a total of 08 posts were reserved for the OBC category. The petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category, had applied for recruitment in the BRO. In the year 2010, the respondent No.4-UPSC had declared the names of 29 recommended candidates and had prepared a reserved list of 42 candidates wherein petitioner’s name was placed at Sl. No.31 (Annexure P-7) . 3. Before the appointments could be made on the basis of the recommended list finalized by the respondent No.4-UPSC, several complaints were lodged by unsuccessful candidates alleging that some of the selected candidates did not possess the requisite administrative experience prescribed for the post. As a result, a Screening Committee was constituted on 15th July, 2010 and another Screening Committee was constituted on 27th December, 2010, who gave its final report dated 9th March, 2011 recommending inter alia that the entire selection list be scrapped. 4. Vide letters dated 18th May, 2011 and 13th May, 2011, respondent No.4-UPSC had scrapped the entire list. However, the said action of scrapping was challenged by the affected parties in several writ petitions, which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 10th July, 2013 that was
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 861/2016
affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6th January, 2014. Resultantly, the appointment list was revived by the respondent No.4- UPSC. After the revival of the said list, the panels dated 9th June, 2010 and 17th June, 2010 were revived and appointment letters were issued to 30 candidates, out of whom, it is submitted that 24 selected candidates had joined the service and 06 vacancies are still available.
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 861/2016
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2016 r
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 861/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents directed to reply to the petitioner's notice and fill remaining reserved vacancies.
Whether the petitioner deserves a direction to fill up six vacancies including two General and four OBC categories.
Naresh Kumar
Union of India
Border Roads Development Board
UPSC
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
