Dismissed

Yogesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC11 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/13344/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a rejected candidate seeking appointment as Sub-Inspector. Finding no justification for repeated litigation despite multiple opportunities, the court held that it could not grant the requested mandamus to dispose of the latest representation.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to dispose of the representation for appointment as Sub-Inspector was denied and the petition was dismissed.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13344/2018

¶3

YOGESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Abhishek and Mr. N.L. Bareja, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate for R-2, R-3 & R-4.

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R % 11.12.2018

¶10

This is virtually the third round of litigation. The Petitioner qualified in the written examination forming part of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 25^th August 2013 for appointment for the post of Sub Inspector (SI) (General Duty) (GD) for appointment in one of the 191 vacancies released for general candidates. When his candidature was rejected by the recruitment board, he filed W.P.(C) 1297/2014 which came up for hearing before this Court along with five other writ petitions all of which were allowed by a common judgment dated 19^th August 2015.

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

W.P.(C) 13344/2018

¶13

To implement that order which required the Respondents to give them appointment letters within two months of the order being passed, Cont. Case (C) 875/2015 was filed where a statement was made on 27^th January 2016 by the Respondents that they were in the process of complying with the order dated 19^th August 2015 and six weeks time was sought for the same.

¶14

On 5^th February 2016, even before making him an offer of appointment on 19^th April 2016, the Respondents informed the Petitioner in writing that his case had again been examined and it was found that he had obtained equal marks in the written examination as obtained by the last selected candidate in his category, but since the Petitioner was ‘less in age’ than the last selected candidate, he could not be placed on the merit list in terms of directions issued by the DIG (Recruitment) dated 1^st February 2016. On 17^th March 2016, the Petitioner was issued an offer of appointment to post of SI/GD and directed to report to 222^nd Battalion, CRPF post the hearing of the Cont. Case (C)No.875/2015 on 15^th March 2016 where the Respondents were directed to issue the letter of appointment to the Petitioner immediately in terms of the judgement and order dated 19^th August 2015.The Petitioner immediately accepted the same and withdrew the contempt petition filed by him with liberty to approach the Court if needed in the future. However this was a conditional offer since the Respondents communicated that the appointment of the Petitioner would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the special leave petition being filed by them.

¶15

When SLP Civil (C) No. CC 22313-14/2016 filed by the Respondents came up for hearing in Supreme Court on 2^nd December 2016, the

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

W.P.(C) 13344/2018

¶18

Respondents were permitted to withdraw the SLP to file review petition before this Court on the ground that the present Petitioner “was very low down in the merit”.

¶19

Pursuant to the leave granted, Review Petition No. 8/2017 was again filed by the Respondents which came to be allowed by the Division Bench by its order dated 27^th March 2017. The Court noted that although he had obtained the requisite marks in the LDCE, “despite this, he could not make the grade on account of the time that existed between him and other similarly placed candidates.” It was noted that the candidate at Sl. No. 189 who obtained 140 marks was the oldest amongst all others with the same marks who were at Sl. Nos. 190 to 195. Being the oldest, the candidate at Sl. No. 189 was offered the post. This was consistent with the applicable rule.

¶20

Against the above order dated 27^th March 2017, the present Petitioner filed SLP (Civil) 14463/2017 which came to be dismissed on 8^th May 2017 on the very same day that the offer made to the Petitioner by the letter dated 19^th April 2016 and 7^th May 2016 was cancelled.

¶21

The present round of litigation is on account of the Petitioner making yet another representation on 20^th September 2017 for considering him for the post of SI/GD pursuant to the vacancies published for LDCE-2016.

¶22

The Court finds no justification for the Petitioner to keep agitating the same issue over and over again by instigating fresh rounds of litigation. The mandamus that the Petitioner seeks to the Respondents to dispose of his

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

W.P.(C) 13344/2018

¶25

representation cannot be granted by the Court in the above circumstances.

¶26

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶28

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

¶29

DECEMBER 11, 2018 nk

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

W.P.(C) 13344/2018

Yogesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar v. Union of India and 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

B. K. Tripathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanijan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Ors.

Mgmt. of Cantonment Board Merr Vs Preetam Singh

Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Corruption Against Society (Regd) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Ruchi Goyal & Anr. Vs Nbcc(India) Ltd.{Formerly National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.} & Ors.

P K Sharma Vs Orietntal Insurance Company Ltd.

Kanijan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Const Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Const. Mohd. Tahir Hasan & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh. Amarpreet Singh Oberoi & Ors. Vs a N Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Kanchan Jalan Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.