Dismissed

Mrs Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/6872/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Jyoti Singh disposed of a writ petition filed by a Sikh candidate denied entry to an examination for wearing a Kara. The Court found merit in the applicant's grievance regarding lack of notice. The Court imposed a symbolic monetary compensation and directed an unconditional apology from the examination authority.

What did the court decide?

Symbolic compensation of Rs. 101/- and unconditional apology to be tendered by Respondent No. 3 within 08 weeks.

Mrs Manharleen Kaur Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6872/2021

¶4

MRS MANHARLEEN KAUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gurmukh Singh Arora and Mr. Akshit Narula, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh and Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocates for R-1. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-2 to R-4.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 19.09.2024

¶10

Petitioner is a lady belonging to the Sikh Community and approached this Court being aggrieved by action of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in not permitting her to appear in the examination for selection to the post of PGT- Economics (Female) held on 17.07.2021 albeit on the basis of Admit Card issued to her, she had reached the examination centre before time. The reason for preventing the Petitioner from appearing in the examination was that she was wearing a metallic Kara, which she refused to remove as it was one of the basic tenets of Sikh religion. In a detailed order dated 11.07.2022, Court noted the grievance of the Petitioner and also directed the DSSSB to ensure that adequate notice regarding the additional requirement for candidates desirous of wearing Kara/Kirpan to reach the examination centre

¶11

W.P.(C) 6872/2021 Page 1 of 3

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/10/2024 at 12:08:30

¶13

one hour before the reporting time be given well in advance so that no undue hardship is caused to them as was caused to the Petitioner. Time was sought on behalf of Respondents No. 3 and 4 to obtain instructions regarding the timeframe within which a fresh examination for the post in question was likely to be held.

¶14

Additional affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondents no. 2 and 3 in which it was stated that 6 vacancies of PGT-Economics (Female) had been notified vide advertisement dated 19.12.2022 and 01 UR vacancy was kept vacant in compliance of the interim order dated 08.09.2021 in the present case. Pursuant to the advertisement, Petitioner appeared in the next examination, however, she was unable to qualify the same.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while the petitioner has taken up another employment and has moved on in life, but a message must go to the Respondents that they must be cautious and sensitive towards religious sentiments of the people and in case the rules of an examination do not permit the candidates from taking metallic objects inside the Centre for security reasons or otherwise, it should be notified in the advertisement itself that candidates wearing a Kara or carrying a Kirpan must report in advance, so that they can be checked well in time. It is thus urged that a symbolic cost be imposed on Respondent No.3 for not notifying the instructions in the advertisement correctly and an unconditional apology be tendered to the Court. Learned counsel also submits that Petitioner does not wish to prosecute the writ petition on merits.

¶16

In my view, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel in the backdrop of this case that an examination conducting agency must be more cautious in stipulating Instructions to candidates, failing which the

¶17

W.P.(C) 6872/2021 Page 2 of 3

¶18

¶19

careers of candidates can be adversely affected, as has happened in the present case and for no fault of the Petitioner.

¶20

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that Respondent No.3 shall pay a symbolic compensation of Rs.101/- to the Petitioner and file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology, within 08 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶21

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶22

SEPTEMBER 19, 2024/shivam

¶23

W.P.(C) 6872/2021 Page 3 of 3

¶24

Mrs Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & 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

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Harbans Gandhi & Ors.

Vikas Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Transport Commissioner

Rajender Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rani Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Yogesh Paliwal Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Prashant Softwares Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Mohd. Shahzad Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Aruna Tiku Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Neha Agarwal Vs Canara Bank

Raj Kumar Saini & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

K.P.Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.

General Secretary, Cel Retired Employees Welfare Association (Celrewa) Vs Central Electronics Limited & Anr.

Dipti Sharma Vs Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University

Ranju Jain Vs the Govt, of NCT of Delhi & Ors.