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

2024 Supreme(Del) 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Saurabh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 10567 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 11265 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 10567/2023.
Ms. Nidhi Banga, Senior PC with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate, for the UOI with Mr. A.K. Rawat, 2IC (Commandant), BSF in W.P.(C) 10567/2023.
Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 11265/2023.
Mr. Akash Verma, Senior PC with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, GP, for the UOI with Mr. A.K. Rawat, 2IC (Commandant), BSF in W.P.(C) 11265/2023.

IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioners did not have a vested right of appointment and did not qualify for the post.

Headnote:

Condonation of Delay - Recruitment Dispute - Article 226 of The Constitution of India - W.P.(C) 10567/2023, W.P.(C) 11265/2023 - The judgment discusses the recruitment dispute for the post of Head Constable (Radio Mechanic) in the Border Security Force. It involves the challenge of the final merit list, correction of answers, and appointment of the petitioners. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the petitioners did not qualify for the post and had no vested right of appointment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the final merit list for the post of Head Constable (Radio Mechanic) in the Border Security Force, claiming incorrect answers and seeking appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners did not qualify for the post and had no vested right of appointment. It dismissed the petitions, stating that allowing them would cause unnecessary administrative hurdles.

Issues: Challenge of final merit list, correction of answers, appointment of petitioners

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners did not qualify for the post and had no vested right of appointment. Allowing the petitions would cause unnecessary administrative hurdles.

Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 3193/2024 (for condonation of delay) in W.P.(C) 10567/2023

The present application has been filed by the respondents seeking condonation of delay in filing the counter affidavit.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned and the counter affidavit is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 43866/2023 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 11265/2023

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10567/2023 & W.P.(C) 11265/2023

1. Since both the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions are aspirants desiring to join the respondent no.2 as Head Constable (Radio Mechanic), and both the petitions involve similar issues, raise similar contentions with similar prayers, therefore, this Court after hearing the learned counsels for the petitioners, is proceeding to decide them by this common judgment.

2. As per the common brief background involved, the Director General, Border Security Force, i.e. respondent no.2 herein, on 20.08.2022 issued an advertisement for filling of 248 posts of Head Constable (Radio Mechanic), of which, 64 posts were reserved for Other Backward Castes [OBC] category. Though the petitioner in each of the two petitions applied for the post of Head Constable (Radio Mechanic) under the OBC category and successfully cleared three stages of the examination, their names did not appear in the final merit list declared on 12.04.2023.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners alongwith other similarly situated petitioners, in the first round of litigation, filed a petition before this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No.5585/2023 inter-alia seeking setting aside of the result declared on 12.04.2023 as also publication of answer key for the OMR based examination, declaration of marks obtained by the petitioners and cut-off marks for all categories and re-examination of the case of petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Radio Mechanic). On the first hearing of the said petition, the respondents were directed to inform the petitioners of their score and show their OMR answer key alongwith the answer key prepared by the respondents. In response, this Court was apprised that a question therein was indeed found `incorrect'. Thus, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2023, albeit, with liberty to file afresh assailing the discrepancy found.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners alongwith other similarly situated petitioners, in the second round of litigation, filed another petition before this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No.7488/2023 inter-alia seeking modification of the final result declared on 12.04.2023, direction to the respondents to get correctness of answers to two questions checked and details of the last selected candidate in the OBC category. This Court, while disposing the aforesaid petition vide order dated 26.05.2023, directed the respondents therein, to treat the said writ petition as a representation as also to decide the same by a Board of Officers, `consisting of Mathematics and Science experts', within six weeks.

5. Thus, taking into account the discrepancy highlighted by the petitioners, the respondent no.2, vide a speaking order dated 30.06.2023, observed that the representation had no merit and the petitioners ought to have contested the question within 3-7 days of the date of examination as also that the recruitment process was already over with the selected candidates having joined Training Centres on 15.05.2022 for basic recruitment training.

6. Thereafter, in the third round of litigation, the petitioners have filed the present petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, seeking quashing/modification of the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the respondents as also a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Head Constable (Radio Mech

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