This court rejected the petitioner's writ petition challenging the CAB's rejection of his application based on delay and laches. The court held that the petitioner failed to challenge the show-cause notice promptly and denied relief to prevent setting the examination process open-ended, distinguishing the precedent cited.
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.
$~
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr.Vishal Mittal, Adv for R-1 to 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C)No.3580.19 Page 1 of 5
candidates and concluded that several candidates, including the petitioner, had resorted to copying. The petitioner and several other candidates were issued show-cause notices asking them to reply to the charge of adopting unfair methods and cheating in the examination. The petitioner sent his response on 13.06.2013 to the said show-cause notice dated 27.05.2013. The result of the petitioner was not declared in the light of the show-notice issued to him, but the petitioner took no further steps in the matter till he preferred the original application on 15.02.2018 i.e. after nearly 4.5 years of his responding to the showcause notice.
W.P.(C)No.3580.19 Page 2 of 5
and, therefore, the same was applicable to all similarly situated candidates, including the petitioner.
W.P.(C)No.3580.19 Page 3 of 5
this Court was a decision in rem . We have perused the said decision and in particular para 22 thereof, on which reliance has been placed. We are of the view that reliance placed on the said decision is misplaced, for the reason that the petitioner having been issued a show-cause notice, it was for him to assail the particular show-cause issued to him on the grounds available to him.
W.P.(C)No.3580.19 Page 4 of 5
wherein the respondents by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms.Sudesh Kumari dated 19.07.2017, had selected him for the post in question. It is contended that the said Mr.Pravesh was a candidate in the CGL Examination, 2011 and was given the benefit of the said decision of the Supreme Court, but the petitioner has been denied to the same treatment in respect of the CGL Examination, 2012. We do not have the specific particulars of the said case and, therefore, the same cannot form the basis of the petitioner’s claim.
VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE)
REKHA PALLI (JUDGE)
APRIL 09, 2019 sr
W.P.(C)No.3580.19 Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief despite a delay of 4.5 years due to a prior precedent regarding vague show-cause notices.
Whether the decision in Staff Selection Commission vs. V. Sudesh was absolute and in rem, making it applicable to all similarly situated candidates.
Whether the object of limitation laws allows keeping the examination process open-ended if other candidates approached in time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
DEEPAK KUMAR GULIA
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
VIPIN SANGHI
REKHA PALLI
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
