This bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the re-conduction of Group-D examinations in Military Engineering Services. The court held that no right accrued to the petitioners since the final selection list was not declared and no malafide intent was established.
Writ petition and interim order dissolved/dismissed.
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.
1
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.584/2014
Jugal Kishore Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 12.2.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. Kailash Jangid, for the petitioner Mr.AK Rajvanshy, Asstt. Solicitor General a/w Mr.DP Dhaka, for the respondents.
2
“19. We have also perused the enquiry report and the original complaint received regarding favoritism in the first examination. It is settled principle of law that where the competent authority verified the facts from record of any inquiry howsoever summary the same may be, it is possible for the competent authority to take a decision that there are good reasons for making the order which the authority eventually makes. Accordingly, the reasons mentioned in the enquiry report by the competent authority to re-conduct the examination cannot be said to be improper or illegal.
20. So far as contention regarding reservation point is concerned, it is well settled principle of law that after finalization of the recruitment process, reservation policy shall be complied with, therefore, at this stage, merely after declaration of result of the written examination, it cannot be said that reservation policy has not been complied with.
21. So far as failure of applicants in the examination and passing of some of other candidates as evidence of unfairness is concerned, in the absence of any specific allegation or specific malice on the part of any officer the same cannot be accepted as proof and, therefore, the contention raised by the applicants can not sustain in the eyes of law.
22. In totality of the above discussions, in
3
our considered view, all the OA's lack merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.”
4
rights in the earlier selections of which the results were not declared.
[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.
Sanjay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a cause of action existed to challenge the re-conduction of an examination when the final selection list had not been declared.
Whether the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the original applications regarding the re-conducted examination.
Jugal Kishore
Union of India
Govind Mathur
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
