The petitioner challenged the appointment of four candidates by the Staff Selection Commission for Delhi Police vacancies. The Court held that the petitioner would have been outside the waiting list even if the panel were valid, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
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.
$~33
SHREY BAJAJ ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Singal, Mr. Yusuf Khan & Mr. Amarjeet Singh Girsa, Advocates versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms.Srivats Kaushal & Mr. Devank Maheshwari, Advocates for UOI Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate for R-2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 19.11.2018
In compliance of the last order, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, handed over a compilation of documents in Court. He states that the affidavit could not be prepared on account of paucity of time. The said documents are taken on record.
Mr. Singh points out that 3 vacancies were requisitioned by the Delhi Police. Those 3 vacancies including 1 other vacancy were examined and the SSC has nominated for appointment the following four candidates:
| Sl. | Name, Roll No., DOB, Cat etc. | Old Result | Revised result/ remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | |||
| 1 | GAUTAM | RANK-“SLA\175*” | RANK-“SLA\175*” |
| Roll No.-2201042329 | PREF_SEL-“ A” (SI | PREF_SEL-“ A” (SI in | |
| DOB-10/11/91 | in Delhi Police | Delhi Police | |
| PI-99.50,PII-127.75INTW-53 | CATSEL-1 | CATSEL-9* |
| Gtotal-280.25 CAT-1 PREF-AHC |
*SC candidate Qualifying atUR standard |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | RAHUL KUMAR Roll No.-2201500078 DOB-19/11/88 PI-111.50, PII-97.75 INTW-71 Gtotal-280.25 CAT-UR PREF-AHCDEBGF |
RANK-“SLC\00014” PREF_SEL-“ C” (SI in CISF CATSEL-9 |
RANK-“SLA\175-A” PREF_SEL-“ A” (SI in Delhi Police CATSEL-9 |
| 3 | UMRAV MAL YADAV Roll No.-2405032569 DOB-05/07/89 PI-111.00, PII-101.50 INTW-51 Gtotal-263.50 CAT-6 PREF-HACGEBDF |
RANK-“SLC\00114*” PREF_SEL-“ C” (SI in CISF) CATSEL-9* |
RANK-“SLA\237-AA” PREF_SEL-“ A” (SI in Delhi Police) CATSEL-6 |
| 4 | RAMANDEEP Roll No.-1601001328 DOB-10/11/87 PI-85.25, PII-101.00 INTW-42 Gtotal-228.25 CAT-1 PREF-ACBEHDF |
RANK-“SLC\00487” PREF_SEL-“ C” (SI in CISF) CATSEL-1 |
RANK-“SLA\280-A” PREF_SEL-“ A” (SI in Delhi Police CATSEL-1 |
Consequently, the cut off marks inter alia in respect of OBC category have though fallen from 264 to 263.5, the petitioner having secured 260.5 marks, Mr. Singh points out, the petitioner stands at serial No. 8 in the waiting list and thus not eligible in any event. Reference is also made to the judgment passed by this Court on 16.12.2016 in Union of India vs. Shrey Bajaj & Anr. in W.P.(C) 11739/2016 wherein the Division Bench took note of its earlier judgment in The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. vs. Ms. Rajni & Ors. W.P.(C) 2552/2012 decided on 05.03.2013, whereby, it was held that the reserve panel should be valid for a period of six months. Following the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the Division Bench directed the Staff Selection Commission to take notice of the ratio and directions issued by the Division
Bench in Ms. Rajni (supra).
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner would have been way below in the waiting list/reserve panel even if the panel was to be prepared and made operative. We therefore find no merit in this petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2018 rd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment despite reservations and waiting list status.
Whether the principles of the earlier judgments render the petitioner eligible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. Shrey Bajaj & Anr.Referred¶10
Union of India vs. Shrey Bajaj & Anr.
The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. vs. Ms. Rajni & Ors.Referred¶10
The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. vs. Ms. Rajni & Ors.
SHREY BAJAJ
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
VIPIN SANGHI
A. K. CHAWLA
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
