Partly allowed

Mr. Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3222/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming non-selection as a Junior Technical Assistant. The Court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to file a public grievance to the respondent Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a public grievance; Corporation to admit within two weeks and decide within four weeks.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order : April 04, 2018

¶2

W.P.(C) 3222/2018

¶3

MR. MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Apoorva Kumar, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Manik Dogra, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Rajiv Shukla, Ms.Shivani Kapoor and Mr.Lakshay Mangla, Advocates for R-2

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶7

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶8

CM No.12756/2018

¶9

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶10

W.P.(C) No.3222/2018 & CM No.12755/2018

¶11

Petitioner claims to have applied for the post of Junior Technical Assistant in response to advertisement of 20^th September, 2016 ( Annexure P- 2 ). It is the case of petitioner that the final selection result for the said post was declared on 17^th April, 2017. As per the final result ( Annexure P-4) pertaining to petitioner, he has not been empanelled as he was not meeting the essential qualification criteria for the post in question. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned selection has been challenged by Neeraj Pal and others by way of W.P.(C) No.3993/2017 which is now

¶12

W.P.(C) No.3222/2018

¶13

Page 1

¶14

coming up for hearing on 24^th April, 2018. It is evident from the communication of 2^nd May, 2017 ( Annexure P-7 ) of respondent-Corporation that said Neeraj Pal had made public grievance regarding his non-selection as Junior Technical Assistant, whereas petitioner has not made any grievance regarding his non-selection for the post in question.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and the application with permission to petitioner to make a public grievance/representation regarding his non-selection for the post in question like above said Neeraj Pal has done. If any such representation from petitioner is received by the respondent-Corporation within two weeks, then it be effectively dealt with by the respondent within a period of four weeks and its fate be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.

¶16

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

¶17

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for parties.

¶18

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶19

APRIL 04, 2018 mamta

¶20

W.P.(C) No.3222/2018

¶21

Page 2

Mr. Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India and 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

Nilofer Rizvi Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.

Satya Pal Batra Vs D.D.A.

Sh. Shyam Vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) and Anr.

Krishan Gopal Bakshi Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sh. Dhanpal Vs Land and Building Department and Anr.

Delhi Jal Board Vs Vimal Kumar

Dev Narayan Vs the Mgmt.of M/S Auto Precision

Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Nilofer Rizvi Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.

Sh. Shyam Vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) and Anr.

NTPC Executives Federation of India (Nefi) through Its Secretary General Shri v K Sharma Vs NTPC Ltd.

Pramod Popli Vs Saumya Gupta

Shaswati Sinha Vs Directorate of Education and Anr.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and Anr.