Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Maj Parul Pargal (retd.) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6908 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2023
Writ Petition - Certiorari - Mandamus - Representation - Decision of the Court directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within one week thereafter. If the representation is decided in favor of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be allowed to join the selection process. Until the decision is made, the ex-servicemen vacancy shall not be filled by another category. The petitioner may challenge the decision before the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reliefs including setting aside the result for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, directing the respondents to declare the result for ex-serviceman candidates with a separate cut off, and allowing the petitioner to participate in further recruitment process. The petitioner had made a representation to the respondent, which had not been decided.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within one week thereafter. The Court also specified that if the representation is decided in favor of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be allowed to join the selection process. Additionally, until the decision is made, the ex-servicemen vacancy shall not be filled by another category. The petitioner was given the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner seeking relief through a writ petition, specifically related to the result for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and the representation made to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the need for the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision within a specified timeframe. The Court also emphasized the rights of the petitioner in relation to joining the selection process and the treatment of ex-servicemen vacancies until a decision is made.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within one week thereafter. The petitioner was given the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"(a) To pass Writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the result: Declared on 06.04.2023 For The Post Of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Assistant Commandant) Group-A, Gazetted (Combatised) (Non-Ministerial);
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order of direction directing respondents to declare result for ex-serviceman candidates with separate cut off at par with other reserved category candidates;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order of direction to allow the petitioner to participate in further recruitment process if petitioner succeeds in the present petition."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has already made the Representation dated 28.03.2023 to the respondent No. 2/Director General, Border Security Force, however, till date, the said Representation dated 28.03.2023 of the petitioner has not yet been decided by the respondent No. 2/Director General, Border Security Force.
3. We hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondent No.2/Director General, Border Security Force to decide the said Representation dated 28.03.2023 of the petitioner within four weeks from today.
4. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner with a reasoned order within one week thereafter.
5. We hereby make it clear that if the representation is decided by the respondent No. 2/Director General, Border Security Force in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall allow the petitioner to join the selection process.
6. It is further made clear that till the decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, the ex-servicemen vacancy, if not filled by the same category, then one vacancy shall not be filled up by the other category.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
8. Needless to say if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
CM APPL. 26921/2023
9. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 6908/2023, the present application is also disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents in response to the petitioner's representations.
The level of performance for Ex-serviceman candidates should not be affected by relaxation of standards.
The court used the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
The need for a conclusive assessment of medical fitness in cases of appointment disputes.
Administrative authority must consider applications filed under relevant procedural statutes within a reasonable time frame, reinforcing statutory obligations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of discipline in the Border Security Force, the adherence to the BSF Act and Rules in dismissal proceedings, and the limited scope f....
Petitioners did not have a vested right of appointment and did not qualify for the post.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
