Dismissed

Vijay Singh v. Union Of India and Another

Uttarakhand HC4 Dec 2014WPSS/1709/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the writ petition regarding the petitioner's non-selection for a CAPF constable post. The court observed that the recruitment agency had already rectified the error and forwarded the candidate's name to the department, rendering further judicial intervention unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's name recommended; no further court action required; directions for expeditious appointment.

Vijay Singh Vs Union Of India and Another — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (S/S) No.1709 of 2014

¶3

Vijay Singh ..…....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India & another ……… Respondents

¶6

Present: Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, present for the respondents.

¶7

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶8

The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Constable (Ground Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (for short “CAPF’s”) i.e. ITBP, CRPF, CISF, SSB and Assam Rifles. He was not selected and he alleged some anomalies in the selection process and filed this writ petition.

¶9

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: -

¶10

“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. Vijay Singh was inadvertently left out.

¶11

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.

¶12

That it is further submitted that after revision of the result of the petitioner, his dossier has been

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

That the respondents earnestly submits that the inadvertent mistake in processing the result of the petitioner was not an intentional one and 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.”

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner says that in view of the aforesaid averment in the short counter affidavit wherein the mistake has been admitted by the Staff Selection Commission/respondent no.2 and the name of the petitioner being forwarded to the Indo Tibetan Border Police, the writ petition be disposed of, in the light of the above admission by the respondents.

¶18

Since the relief sought by the petitioner has already been given to the petitioner as the name of the petitioner have been recommended, no further action is needed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a bunch of writ petitions where the leading case was Writ Petition (S/S) No.476 of 2014, a similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2014.

¶20

¶21

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the judgment and order dated 16.09.2014 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.476 of 2014 with a direction to the concerned authority to take action as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶22

No order as to costs.

¶23

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.12.2014

¶24

Vijay Singh v. Union Of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. Union Of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Aradhana Rawat Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Shiv Lal Arya Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Rajendra Prasad Joshi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Chandra Shekhar Patni Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Vijendra Singh Vs Union Of India and Another

Kundan Ram Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others