Disposed

Kamal Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2019W.P.(C)/7686/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a member of the CRPF, challenged his non-selection for immediate deployment to Iraq despite being part of the 45-person list. The Court was informed that space constraints in Baghdad necessitated a phased deployment based on seniority. Finding no need for further directions, the petition was allowed only to the extent of granting exemption to the application.

What did the court decide?

No further directions issued; petition disposed of.

Kamal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7686/2019

¶4

KAMAL SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.B.K.Pandey and Mr.Umesh Choudhary, Advocates.

¶6

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Manish Mohan CGSC with Mr. Aakash Bajpayee, Manish Saroha and Mr. R.N.Parikh, Advocates for R-1 to R-4.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

¶8

O R D E R % 17.09.2019

¶9

CM APPL. 31981/2019 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

W.P.(C) 7686/2019

¶12

The Petitioner is aggrieved on account of his not being sent to Iraq as part of a contingent of personnel of the Central Reserved Police Force (‘CRPF’) sent by the Government of India.

¶13

The list of persons to be sent was finalized way back on 9^th March, 2019. Admittedly, of the 45 persons so selected, 30 have been sent to Iraq, while the remaining 15, of which the Petitioner is one, have not.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Respondents pointed out that before the deployment of the contingent, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) was asked to send an advance party to assess the requirements and work out the deployment mechanism. After taking stock of the situation, the advance party reported that there is a space constraint in Baghdad and that only 30 personnel could be accommodated. It was accordingly recommended that the deployment would be done in phases.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the basis for sending the 30 personnel, out of the 45 originally selected, was a rank-wise selection on the basis of seniority in the merit list. He further states that the remaining 15, including the Petitioner, would be dispatched after arrangements for sufficient accommodation is made at Baghdad.

¶16

In view of the above clarification, no further directions are called for. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶17

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶18

TALWANT SINGH, J.

¶19

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 mr

Kamal Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh 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

H C Nagwan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pahwa International Vs Commisioner of Value Added Tax & Anr.

M/S Kohli Traders Vs Sh. Shyam Singh

Stanley Fernandes Vs Commissioner of Customs ( Export)

Narsingoju Vishal & Ors. Vs University of Delhi through Chief Election Officer & Ors.

M/S Tnm Services Vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,-International Taxation -1 Vs Dipankar Mohan Ghosh

Narain Singh, Ex. Hc/Gd Vs Union of India and Ors.

H C Nagwan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ct(Bb) Jagbir Beniwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bhagirath Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shri Ravindra Kumar Hajela Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Society and Ors.

Jitender Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Parvinder Kaur Vs Union of India and Ors.