In a writ petition regarding anomalies in CAPF recruitment selection, the judge disposed of the petition as the petitioner had already been allocated a post, resulting from the recruitment agency's admission of an inadvertent error.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1708 of 2014
Vijendra Singh ….…Petitioner Versus
Union of India & another ….… Respondents
Present: Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, present for the respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
2 . Notices were issued to the respondents. Short counter affidavit has been filed in the matter by one Mr. Vilas Burde, Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region), New Delhi/respondent no.2, in which it has been stated by the respondent no. 2 that: -
“That it is also submitted in respect of paras 13-22 that while processing the results of Recruitment of Constable (GD) in CAPF’s in Assam Rifles Examination 2012 name of the petitioner i.e. Vijendra Singh was inadvertently left out.
That it is also submitted that the respondents have now reviewed the result of the petitioner and based on the same allocated him to the I.T.B.P. as per his merit-cum-preference.
2
That it is further submitted that after revision of the result of the petitioner, his dossier has been forwarded to the I.T.B.P. A copy of the nomination letter is placed at Annexure R-I. The Staff Selection Commission (Respondent No.2) is a recruiting agency and, therefore, its role is over after nomination of the candidate to the department for which he has been selected.
That it is further submitted that I.T.B.P., the department to which the dossier of the petitioner has been forwarded shall complete the preappointment formalities and take further action with regard to his appointment.
That the respondents earnestly submits that the inadvertent mistake in processing the result of the petitioner was not an intentional one or for any other reason that was otherwise attributed to the respondent. However, the respondent regrets the inadvertent mistake and tenders unconditional apology for the same.”
3
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.12.2014
ML
Vijendra Singh
Union of India
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
