Dismissed

Pardeep v. the Director General and Ors.

Delhi HC26 Nov 2021W.P.(C)/13388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought examination records under the RTI Act, having previously been discharged from service. The Court dismissed the petition, characterizing it as an attempt to get a second bite at the cherry and noting the availability of alternative remedies under the RTI Act.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs

Pardeep Vs the Director General and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2021)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 26^th November, 2021

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 13388/2021

¶4

PARDEEP ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vishwendra Verma, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Nemo.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

¶8

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶9

CM 42177/2021 (exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

W.P.(C) 13388/2021

¶12

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to provide copies of examination result pertaining to the petitioner.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was discharged from services as Constable in the Railway Protection Force, without any reason, though he had performed his duties from 05.08.2020 to 14.08.2020. When the petitioner challenged the said order of discharge by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.7645/2020, the

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Dat e:29 .11.2021 16:23

¶16

W.P.(C) No.13388/2021 Page 1 of 5

¶17

respondents stated that the petitioner could not qualify even in the second attempt of the examination. Though the petitioner objected to the said statement and categorically submitted that he never appeared in the second attempt of the examination and even the marks of the first examination were not disclosed to him, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner thereafter applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking answer sheets of the examinations as well as register by which the petitioner performed his duties at Gorakhpur from 05.08.2020 to 14.08.2020, however, the respondents by one or other reasons have not provided the same.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner had not appeared in the second attempt of the examination and therefore, the respondents should be directed to produce the answer sheets of the said alleged examination. He submits that the petitioner apprehends that the said record may be destroyed with the efflux of time.

¶19

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same.

¶20

At the outset, we note that the petition is woefully short of giving complete particulars of the examination in question and the relevance thereof. For the said purpose, one has necessarily to refer to the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner being WP(C) No.7645/2020, which in turn also noticed that the said petition also appeared to be intentionally drafted

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Dat e:29 .11.2021 16:23

¶23

W.P.(C) No.13388/2021 Page 2 of 5

¶24

with confusing pleas and averments to create confusion and to have notice issued thereon and press for interim stay. The relevant observation of the Court is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶25

“6. To say the least, on a reading of the petition, the challenge made therein could not be understood and the averments in the petition were found to be vague and disjointed. Though the impugned order dated 11^th /14^th August, 2020 refers to the Employment Notice No.01/2018 pursuant to which the petitioner was stated to have been selected but the said notice, from which we could have understood the terms and conditions on which the petitioner was employed, also was not filed. The petitioner, as annexures to the petition, besides the impugned order dated 11^th /14th August, 2020, has only filed a copy of the representation dated 4th September, 2020 claimed to have been made by him and from which representation also nothing more could be understood.

¶26

xxxxxxx

¶27

34. The petition is entirely misconceived and it appears that intentionally confusing pleas and averments were made in the petition so as to, by creating confusion, have notice thereof issued and press for interim stay of the impugned order of discharge of the petitioner. However owing to the counsel for the respondents Railways, though appearing on advance notice but having obtained instructions, the need therefor has not arisen.”

¶28

We also note that the said order had also rejected the claim of the petitioner on merits by observing as under:

¶29

“20. The counsel for the respondents informs that the petitioner took the first attempt in the

¶30

Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Dat e:29 .11.2021 16:23

¶31

W.P.(C) No.13388/2021 Page 3 of 5

¶32

subject paper of Law, on 3rd July, 2020 but obtained only 33 out of 100 marks. It is further informed that the petitioner availed of the second attempt, on 29th July, 2020 but in which attempt he could secure only 12 out of 100 marks.

¶33

21. The counsel for the petitioner then states that the petitioner was never informed of the said marks and had never been informed that he had failed.

¶34

22. Neither do we find any provision in the Rules for any such intimation nor did the petitioner at any point of time raise any plea or objection in this regard. In fact the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 11^th / 14^th August, 2020 of his discharge, has also been informed of his having failed to clear the written examination in the subject of Law, on conclusion of the training, even after the second attempt.

¶35

xxxxxx

¶36

24. As would be evident from the dates given by the counsel for the respondents, the petitioner availed of both attempts within the month of July, 2020 and thus the said argument also does not carry the case of the petitioner any further. Moreover it is not pleaded in the petition also that the stipend for the month of July, 2020 was paid. The counsel for the respondents also on enquiry states that since it was not so pleaded in the petition, he could not obtain instruction on this aspect.

¶37

xxxxx

¶38

29. We tend to believe the same, in the absence of any appointment letter. Merely because the petitioner may have been asked to proceed to Gorakhpur, awaiting declaration of his result, would not vest any right in the petitioner, to be recruited, if the petitioner in accordance with Rules aforesaid is not eligible for recruitment.”

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Dat e:29 .11.2021 16:23

¶41

W.P.(C) No.13388/2021 Page 4 of 5

¶42

We find that the present petition is merely an attempt of the petitioner to have ‘ second bite at the cherry’ .

¶43

Even otherwise, if the grievance of the petitioner is that the information sought for by the petitioner under the RTI Act has not been supplied to the petitioner, the RTI Act itself gives an adequate alternate efficacious remedy against the said denial. The petitioner gives no reason for availing such remedy.

¶44

This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in the facts of the present petition.

¶45

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶47

MANMOHAN, J

¶48

NOVEMBER 26, 2021 RN/AB

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Location: Signing Dat e:29 .11.2021 16:23

¶51

W.P.(C) No.13388/2021 Page 5 of 5

Pardeep v. the Director General and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep v. the Director General and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Sanjeev Pawar

G4S Secure Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajeet Singh Chouhan

M/S G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Harender Malik

Roopwati Wangoo and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Trivedi and Sons Pvt. Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Tarun Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Renew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Anmol Kumar Mishra (Minor) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ex Ct Gd Vikas Rathi Vs Union of India and Others

S. S. Verma Vs Central Industrial Security Force (through Director General)

Smt.Shalini Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, & Anr.

Vikash Kumar Vs Director General, Indo-Tibetan Boarder Police Force & Ors.

Vijay Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vardhman Cables India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr.