IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Nihal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7427 of 2023 & CM APPL. 28875 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
exemption - W.P.(C) 7488/2023 & CM APPL. 29070/2023 - The court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a representation of the petitioner and to have the correctness of the answers examined by subject experts, with the decision being final and binding on the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to modify a result and have the correctness of answers examined by independent subject experts.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a representation of the petitioner and to have the correctness of the answers examined by subject experts, with the decision being final and binding on the petitioner.
Issues: Modification of result, examination of correctness of answers, re-examination of petitioners' case for vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for independent subject experts to examine the correctness of answers and directed the decision to be final and binding on the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation of the petitioner and to have the correctness of the answers examined by subject experts, with the decision being final and binding on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT (oral)
CM APPL. 29071/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7488/2023 & CM APPL. 29070/2023
3. Vide the present petition, petitioners pray as under:
a) To direct the respondents to modify the result dated 12.04.2023 and that of the petitioner as informed on 04.05.2023;
b) To direct the respondents to get the correctness of the answers to two questions examined from independent subject expert;
c) To direct the respondents to give the details of the last selected candidates in OBC category;
d) To direct the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioners for the vacancies for post of HC(RM) if remains unfilled after any of the selected candidate does not join.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in brief, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to treat the present petition as a representation of the petitioner, and the same shall be decided by the Board of Officers consisting of Mathematics and Science experts within six weeks from today with a reasoned order.
5. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
6. As agreed by the counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, the report of the Board of Officers shall be final and binding on the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications is disposed of.
The decision of independent subject experts is final and binding on the petitioner.
The decision of the Board of Officers shall be final and binding on the petitioner.
Selected reserved category candidate qualifying written exam and producing valid category certificate at document verification cannot be denied appointment for expired certificate at application cut-....
Petitioners did not have a vested right of appointment and did not qualify for the post.
The court upheld the principle that once vacancies are filled and waiting lists expire, claims for appointment cannot be considered.
Transparency and communication in the appointment process, and the right to seek legal remedy if dissatisfied with the decision.
THE COURT CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW OR ON THE GROUND THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COURT/TRIBUNAL ON A POINT OF FACT OR LAW.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.