The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her candidature for a government post, alleging errors in OBC certificate verification. The Court held the petition non-maintainable as the jurisdiction clause directed candidates to approach courts in Delhi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
[1]
CWP-17720-2014
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP-17720-2014 Date of Decision:18.03.2016
Bala
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Home and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate, for the respondents.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure P-3).
Case of the petitioner, in brief, was that she had applied for the post of Multi Task (Non technical) advertised by the respondents. However, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of the successful candidates. Petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and was informed that her candidature had been cancelled as the OBC certificate submitted by her was not on prescribed performa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted the certificate as per the prescribed performa and her candidature had been wrongly rejected by the respondents on irrelevant considerations.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
[2]
CWP-17720-2014
*******
the writ petition was not maintainable because as per Clause-XV of Annexure R-1, the petitioner could have approached the Court at Delhi for redressal of her grievance.
Clause XV of Annexure R-1 reads as under:-
“Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to courts/tribunals having jurisdiction over the place of concerned Regional/Sub Regional Office of the SSC where the candidate has submitted his/her application.”
Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner had submitted her application at Delhi. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court is not maintainable in terms of Clause XV of Annexure R-1.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being not maintainable.
March 18, 2016 kapil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the jurisdiction clause requiring approach to Delhi courts.
Whether the petitioner's cancellation of candidature was based on relevant considerations.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bala
Union of India
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
