Dismissed

Union of India & Anr. v. Vikas

Delhi HC11 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the C.A.T. order quashing their decision to reject the respondent who violated specific exam instructions. The High Court found the Tribunal's observation on exclusivity clauses was correct, dismissed the writ petition, and directed compliance with the Tribunal's order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to comply with T.CAT order within four weeks.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Vikas — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Decision delivered on: 11.09.2024

¶4

+ W.P.(C) 12765/2024, CM APPL. 53172/2024 & 53173/2024

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: None.

¶6

versus

¶7

VIKAS .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Dhruv Kothari and Ms. Shipra Yadav, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

CM APPL. 53173/2024 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 12765/2024

¶15

By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners has sought the following relief:

¶16

“(I) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Judgment dated

¶17

W.P.(C) 12765/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 17:07:58

¶19

08.01.2024 in O.A. 2396/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. (II) Pass any such other or further order(s) as may be deemed necessary and fit on the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶20

The respondent had participated in the selection process initiated by the petitioners herein for Group „D‟ post and on being declared successful at various stages of the examination and document verification, followed by medical examination, he was advised to submit his preference for posting. At that stage, while he was awaiting his offer of appointment, he received a communication („Annexure A1‟ before the learned Tribunal) wherein, the candidature of the respondent has been rejected for the reason “rejected for violation of examination conditions”.

¶21

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent had filed O.A. No. 2396/2016 before the learned Tribunal and same has been allowed vide order dated 08.01.2024, which is impugned in the present petition.

¶22

The case of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal and before this Court is that in the examination certain instructions were mentioned and the respondent has violated the same, which are reproduced as under:

¶23

“1. एकबाररंगेहुएगोलेको्቞े डयासफेदीसेममटानेकीअनुममिनहींहै।

¶24

2. जैलपेनअथवापेंमसलमा्቗ नहींहै। 3. बॉ्ቍ सं्ቅ ा 1 से 7 और 9 से 15 कोअव्ብ भरें।

¶25

4. कृपयाउ्ቈर - प्ቔ , मििीय्ቚमिकेसाथ , परी्ቌाभवनछोड़नेसेपहलेपरी्ቌककोसौप दें।

¶26

5. डु्ऺ ीकेटशीटपरकुछनमलखें।

¶27

6. बॉ्ቍ सं्ቅ ा 13, 14 एवं 15 केगोलेकोभरनेमेंमकसीभी्ቚकार की्ቔुमटकरनेपर कं्यू टरआपकेउ्ቈर - पु़्िका (OMR) को्ቭ िः मनरिकरदेगा | ”

¶28

W.P.(C) 12765/2024 Page 2 of 4 pages

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 17:07:58

¶31

The learned Tribunal observed in the impugned order that under the said head instructions, specifically at Sl. No.6, in case of any correction or change with respect to column nos.13, 14 & 15, the OMR sheet of the candidate shall not be evaluated rather it would stand cancelled. However, with respect to all the other instructions, no such condition is mentioned.

¶32

Before the leaned Tribunal in the O.A., the answer sheet of the respondent was produced and duly evaluated and the respondent secured 106.21 marks against the cut-off marks i.e. 92, which is fairly above the merit.

¶33

Accordingly, the learned Tribunal observed that it is clear from the instructions that the cancellation was invited only in violation with respect to condition no.6.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the respondent had violated instruction no.1, which clearly did not invite any rejection/cancellation. The learned Tribunal observed that the candidature of the respondent has been cancelled incorrectly by applying the exclusivity clause.

¶35

Consequently, the impugned rejection information („Annexure A/1‟ before the learned Tribunal) had been quashed being illegal. Except the aforesaid violation of the instructions the petitioners could not establish any other case that it is a case of cheating or malpractices adopted by the respondent.

¶36

Even if we presume that the respondent violated the instructions of

¶37

W.P.(C) 12765/2024 Page 3 of 4 pages

¶38

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 17:07:58

¶39

the OMR sheet, the same may be ignored wherein he made the overwriting.

¶40

Accordingly, we find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application.

¶41

Consequently, the petitioners are directed to comply with the directions passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE

¶43

(GIRISH KATHPALIA)

¶44

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 11, 2024/ riya

¶45

W.P.(C) 12765/2024 Page 4 of 4 pages

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 3.09.2024 17:07:58

Union of India & Anr. v. Vikas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Anr. v. Vikas

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

Suyasha Sharma Vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Ors.

DDA Vs Vaibhav Malik & Ors.

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

Gurudwara Shree Guru Singh Sabha through Its President Sh. G. S. Chhatwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Omkar Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Dinmani Sharma Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge & Ors.

Harsh Patuna & Ors. Vs National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.

Dr. Saiqa Ikram Vs Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors.

DDA Vs Vaibhav Malik & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sakshi Shedha

Mukesh Sain and Ors. Vs Pragati Power Corporation Limited and Ors.

K C Meena and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhupender Mahalwal & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Rahul