SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Mugada Venkataramana – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8554 of 2023 & CM APPL. 32545 of 2023
Decided On : 10-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R.K. Ojha, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Rattan Negi, D.C., Coast Guard, for the Respondents.

Correction of typographical error in the court order and implementation of the order by the respondent.

Headnote:

Correction of Order - Typographical Error - The court corrected a typographical error in the order and disposed of the application seeking the correction.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought correction of a typographical error in paragraphs 3, 7, and 8 of the order dated 23.06.2023.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the error existed and agreed to the correction. The respondent also agreed to implement the order and induct the petitioner in the recruitment process.

Issues: Correction of typographical error in the order, implementation of the order by the respondent, and induction of the petitioner in the recruitment process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court corrected the typographical error and disposed of the application. The respondent agreed to implement the order and induct the petitioner in the recruitment process.

Final Decision: The application seeking correction of the order was disposed of, and the petitioner was to be inducted in the Stage-3 of the next batch of the recruitment process.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

CM. 34233/2023 (seeking correction of order dated 23.06.2023)

1. By this application, petitioner seeks correction of a typographical error that has crept in paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of order dated 23.06.2023.

2. Learned counsel for respondent concedes that the same is a typographical error. Both the counsel submit that the order needs to be corrected and after correction, the said paragraphs 3 and 7 would read as under:

    "3. The Case of the Petitioner is that Respondents had issued a Notification for the recruitment to the post of Navik (D), Navik (Domestic Branch) and Yantrik in the Indian Coast Guard from 8th September, 2022 (1100 hrs) to 22nd September 2022 (1730 hrs). The Petitioner cleared Stage-I Examination for the said post and, thereafter, he was called for Stage-II Examination, however, his candidature was rejected by the Respondents on the ground that application was with false information and did not match with information as per document uploaded in application and was in contravention of mathematics marks in class 12th Marksheet 142/300, mathematics marks in online application 136/300.

    7. Upon hearing learned counsel representing both the sides, this Court finds that respondents have rejected candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the information pertaining to his marks did not match with the marks filled by him in the online application form."

3. Both learned counsel also agree that Para-8 can be deleted in its entirety. Hence, Para-8 is deleted from the order.

4. Application is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

5. This order shall be uploaded as a corrigendum to order dated 23.06.2023.

W.P.(C) 8554/2023 & CM APPL. 32545/2023

6. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that respondents have agreed to implement the order dated 23.06.2023 and induct the petitioner under the recruitment process. He submits that since the basic training of the existing batch has already commenced, it has been decided to induct petitioner in the Stage-3 of the next batch, which is to commence in the month of September-October, 2023 and subject to petitioner clearing the requisite medical and other formalities, he shall be inducted for training along with the next batch.

7. In view of the above statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner stands readdressed and he does not wish to press the petition any further.

8. In view of the assurance given by the respondent that they are implementing the order dated 23.06.2023 and inducting the petitioner in the Stage-3 along with the next batch, nothing further survives in the petition.

9. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top