Dismissed

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC14 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/3845/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by candidates seeking appointment as Head Constable (CM) in ITBP. The Court held that since candidates with equal or higher marks were not appointed due to failing medical or typing criteria, the petitioners had no right to their appointment. Furthermore, the petitioners could not claim more vacancies than the seven restored by the respondents.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

% Date of decision: February 14, 2024

¶3

W.P.(C) 3845/2019, CM APPL. 3267/2022

¶4

(62) SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS.

¶5

..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikash K. Singh and Mr. Tusha Chawla, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶8

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Sr. PC with Mr. Ankit, Adv. for UOI with DC. / Jag. Deeptiman and SI/CM Pramod Kumar

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶11

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

¶13

“In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶14

a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the revised result dated 02.04.2019 whereby the respondents though finds the petitioners "Qualified (not qualified for next stage)" and wrongly disqualified the petitioners from Detailed Medical examination for the post of HC [CM],

¶15

b. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to treat petitioners as successful candidates and accordingly in

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

W.P.(C) 3845/2019

¶18

Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 21.0 2.2024 17:18:55

¶19

Page 1

¶20

view of the merit position and allowed the petitioners for medical examination;

¶21

c. Issue directions to the respondents to fill up the 15% vacancies of total vacancies of HC [CM] through LDCE candidates as per Recruitment Rules dated 04.07.2018.

¶22

d. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

At the outset, we may state, out of five petitioners, three petitioners at Sr. No.1, 3 and 5 have been given appointment to the post of Head Constable (CM).

¶24

Insofar as the petitioner No.4, Shahanawaz Ali, is concerned, it is a conceded case that he does not meet the eligibility criteria.

¶25

The only issue which remains for consideration is in respect of petitioner No.2, i.e., Pushpendra Singh. We have been informed that the last cut-off marks for General Category candidate is 80, whereas petitioner No.2, i.e., Pushpendra Singh secured 77 marks. The merit list has been placed before us. We find that one candidate namely Amit Kumar Rajoriya, even though got 80 marks, as he could not achieve the required typing speed was not appointed. Further, Ram Karan, who secured 78 marks, was also not appointed.

¶26

In other words, persons above the petitioner No.2, who secured more marks could not be appointed and as such he has no right of appointment over them.

¶27

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vacancies under the UR category should be more than 7. We find that a specific stand has been taken by the respondents

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

W.P.(C) 3845/2019

¶30

Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 21.0 2.2024 17:18:55

¶31

Page 2

¶32

in paragraph 2 of the reply affidavit filed on February 17, 2022, wherein the following has been stated:

¶33

“2. That by way of application under reply, the Applicant has sought direction to the respondents to issue Offer of Appointment to Petitioner no. 5 – Shri Phool Chand Jakhar. It is apposite to note that present petition is filed by a total of 5 petitioners who have participated in the recruitment for the advertised vacancies in the Unreserved Category of 'Head Constable/Combatant Ministerial (LDCE) (Limited Department Candidates only), ITBP'.”

¶34

The above shows, the petitioners having participated against seven vacancies advertised cannot claim, the vacancies should be more than seven.

¶35

In any case, we find that though the initial advertisement stipulated UR vacancies as seven, the same were reduced. It was contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decrease in vacancies is arbitrary. Be that as it may, the respondents have revised the UR vacancies of LDCE quota from one to seven, that is, they have restored the original number of vacancies. No ground is made out to contend that the vacancies should be more than seven.

¶36

We find no merit in the petition, the writ petition and connected application are dismissed.

¶37

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶38

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶39

FEBRUARY 14, 2024 /aky

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

W.P.(C) 3845/2019

¶42

Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 21.0 2.2024 17:18:55

¶43

Page 3

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Samraj Polytex Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Anr.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-4, Vs M/S Hcil Comtel Ltd.

Jitender Kumar Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Anr.

Deepak & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jindal Films India Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Raj Kumar Vs the Secretary Labour & Anr.

Harsh Pandey Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Lalit Mohan Singh Rana Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. Vs Prakash Kumar Dixit

Jagmohan Kapoor Vs Mamta Kapoor

Sumit Kumar Vs Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

Bhupendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.