This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging the final selection list of Constable recruits. The court held the six-year delay impermissible, rejecting the 'piggyback rider' argument that favorable orders in a related Jaipur Bench matter validated the present petition.
Petition dismissed as hopelessly belated.
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.
$~10
BIJENDER KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.C.M.Verma & Mr.Ajit Kumar Jain, Advocates
versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.Seerat Deep Singh, Advocate for UOI
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 14.05.2018
Test, they had appeared in the written examination. The result of the written examination was declared on 28.11.2011 and the cut off list was published and uploaded by the respondents on the internet on the same date. As per the said result, petitioner No.1 had obtained 54 marks, petitioner No.2 had obtained 50 marks, petitioner No.3 had obtained 52 marks, petitioner No.4 had obtained 55 marks, petitioner No.5 had obtained 42 marks, petitioner No.6 had obtained 61 marks and petitioner No.7 had obtained 58 marks out of 100 marks, which were below the cut off marks.
Writ Petition No.2867/2017, entitled ‘ Kashi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr. ’ wherein several directions were issued to the respondents on the assurance given by the learned Additional Solicitor General, UOI. On perusing the directions issued in the aforesaid matter which included, amongst the others, permission given to the petitioners therein to submit their representation before the respondents giving details of the candidates who were less meritorious than them but had been appointed. Further, directions were issued to the respondents that the said representations would be considered and a fact finding enquiry shall be conducted to look into the allegations levelled against the officers who at that point of time, were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The respondent No.1/Staff Selection Commission was also directed to pass a detailed speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to each of the petitioners therein.
that too in respect of a matter relating to appointment. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed as hopelessly belated.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
MAY 14, 2018 ‘hkaur’
W.P.(C) 2629/2018
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of over six years in approaching the court renders the petition hopelessly belated.
Whether the petitioners can claim benefit from orders passed in favor of other candidates who earlier approached the court.
Whether the directions issued in a related matter benefit petitioners who failed to approach the court for six years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kashi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶5
SB(Civil) W.P.(C) 2867/2017, entitled Kashi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr.
BIJENDER KUMAR AND ORS.
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
HIMA KOHLI
PRATIBHA RANI
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
