IMPORTANT POINT
Transparency and communication in the appointment process, and the right to seek legal remedy if dissatisfied with the decision.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 12182/2024

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2959/2024

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"Therefore in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable (Medic) w.e.f. 10.01.2024 and with all consequential benefits by redrawing the merit list after merging the OBC Category with the General Category and thereby declaring both General as well as OBC category as Unreserved Category;

II. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside any policy/rule/statute, if any, which grants any subsequent benefit in the form of reservation/concession/relaxation/exemption to the candidates belonging to the OBC category, after their initial appointment/induction into the force, being unconstitutional;

III. Or in alternative Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable (Medic) in OBC Category w.e.f. 10.01.2024 and with all consequential benefits, by taking into consideration his OBC Certificate;

IV. Pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

2. In effect, the petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Constable (Medic). Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn our attention to page 65 of the paper book which is the list of qualified candidates to contend that the petitioner is placed at serial no. 29 of the said list prepared by the respondents, but he has not been appointed to the post in question despite candidates who are placed at serial nos. 23 to 26 who have secured identical marks but younger to petitioner, have been appointed.

3. We find that a detailed representation has been made by the petitioner to the respondents on January 12, 2024.

4. He fairly states, though the portal of the respondents/CISF depicts the status of the aforesaid representation as closed, no communication in that regard has been sent to the petitioner.

5. Appropriate shall be that the respondents to communicate the decision taken by them on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today.

6. If the petitioner has any grievance with the reasons/conclusion drawn by the respondents on the representation, he shall seek such remedy as available in law.

7. The petition is disposed of. No costs.

CM APPL. 12183/2024

Dismissed as infructuous.