Dismissed¶¶21

Ayodhya Kumar Rajbhar v. Lok Sabha Secretariat and Ors.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Casual labour engagement Lok Sabha Secretariat 2017 recruitment; OBC caste certificate not in prescribed format, certificate issued prior to 01.10.2013; first-stage screening 17.01.2017, final stage 15.04.2017-16.04.2017; final result 23.05.2017; RTI Act 2005 application 12.03.2024; delay/laches, Article 226 writ not entertained at belated stage; Ram Kumar Gijroya (2016) 4 SCC 754 distinguished; W.P.(C) 524/2025; CM APPL. 2438/2025 exemption allowed; Prateek Jalan, J.; dismissed 16.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

It is inappropriate to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at this belated stage; the Court expressly declined to enter into the merits of the petitioner's contentions, noting there was no averment of any steps taken between 2017 and the 2024 RTI application. ¶¶18

Ayodhya Kumar Rajbhar Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction upon the Lok Sabha Secretariat to appoint/engage him as a casual labour pursuant to the 2017 recruitment process. +1 more

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Board & Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754, relied on by the petitioner, does not assist him: it holds that reserved category candidates may submit certificates before publication of the provisional selection list, and does not address delay in filing a writ petition.ratio¶¶19
In view of the inordinate delay in approaching the Court, the petitioner cannot be aided and the petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Secretariat to engage the petitioner as casual labour. The petitioner, an OBC category candidate, applied in 2017, was interviewed and secured 23 marks out of 25, but was found ineligible for the final stage screening held on 15.04.2017-16.04.2017 for failure to supply his caste/category certificate in the prescribed format (his enclosed certificate pre-dated 01.10.2013); the final result was declared on 23.05.2017. His next step was an RTI application on 12.03.2024. Holding that there was no averment of any step taken between 2017 and 2024, the Court declined, without going into merits, to entertain the petition at so belated a stage. Reliance on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Board & Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 was rejected as misplaced: that decision permits reserved category candidates to submit certificates before publication of the provisional selection list and does not address delay in filing a writ petition. CM APPL. 2438/2025 (exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~100

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 524/2025 AYODHYA KUMAR RAJBHAR .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

¶4

versus

¶5

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta and Mr. Umang Dixit, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 16.01.2025 CM APPL. 2438/2025 (for exemption)

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(C) 524/2025

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondent- Lok Sabha Secretariat to appoint/engage the petitioner as a casual labour.

¶13

The contention of the petitioner is that he applied for such engagement as an Other Backward Classes [“OBC”] category candidate in the year 2017. He was called for interview and secured 23 marks out of a maximum of 25 marks, but was not engaged. The petitioner thereafter applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [“RTI Act”], on 12.03.2024, seeking information with regard to the aforesaid recruitment. By their reply dated 12.03.2024, the respondents have informed the petitioner that he was found ineligible for the final stage screening of candidates held

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

W.P.(C) 524/2025

¶16

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 24/01/2025 at 15:35:18

¶17

on 15.04.2017-16.04.2017, as he had not supplied the caste/category certificate in the prescribed format and the certificate enclosed with his form was issued prior to 01.10.2013.

¶18

Without getting into the merits of the petitioner’s contentions, I am of the view that it is inappropriate to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at this belated stage. The recruitment in question was held in 2017. The petitioner participated in the first-stage screening on 17.01.2017 but was found ineligible for the final stage screening held in April, 2017. In the list of dates and writ petition, there is no averment with regard to any steps taken by him in this regard from 2017 until he submitted an application under the RTI Act in the year 2024.

¶19

In the meanwhile, it is stated in the writ petition itself that the final result for engagement of casual labours was declared on 23.05.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Board & Another, [(2016) 4 SCC 754]. However, the said judgment holds that reserved category candidates ought to be permitted to submit their certificates before publication of the provisional selection list. It does not address the question of delay in filing of a writ petition.

¶20

In view of the inordinate delay in approaching this Court, I am unable to come to the aid of the petitioner in the present petition.

¶21

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 16, 2025/ MR/kb/

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

W.P.(C) 524/2025

¶26

Ayodhya Kumar Rajbhar v. Lok Sabha Secretariat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya Kumar Rajbhar v. Lok Sabha Secretariat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S S.H. Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi

Prashant Reddy T. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mandeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hawkers Surksha Foundation Vs Union of India and Ors.

Seema Jamwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kunte and Drabu Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3) & Ors.

Elitecast Media Private Limited Vs Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd.

Grid Solutions Oy (Ltd) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 1(3)(1) & Anr.

Vidaya Devi Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Randhir Singh Vs Land & Building Department

Ravi Kapoor Vs Rukmani Devi

Geeta Panwar and Ors. Vs Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and Ors.

Tarzan (India) Chemical Industries Vs O.P Jindal

Tarun Mittal Vs Deputy Commissioner (District East) & Anr.