Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. inconsistencies in recruitment rules (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discovery of applicant's exclusion (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments concerning the applicant's eligibility (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's final decision and order (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. What emerges from the record is, as follows:
2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 09.01.2010.
2.2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 16.03.2013 [hereafter referred as `2013 advertisement'], the petitioner applied, inter alia, for the post of Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police, and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), indicating thereby, the former as his first preference and the latter as his third. The said advertisement was issued by respondent no. 1 i.e., Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for appointment of SIs, not only in the Delhi Police but also, inter alia, in CISF.
2.3. The record shows that, the total number of
Errors in procedural guidelines do not penalize a candidate if clarifications regarding eligibility and application procedures are inadequately communicated.
Serving personnel cannot claim ex-serviceman quota appointment without completing full service term and timely reporting despite multiple opportunities.
The eligibility of any candidate is to be reckoned from the date of the selection and appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.
Appointment discrepancies based on merit require adherence to statutory rules, and procedural delays must not harm candidates' rights to seniority and benefits.
A bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured.
Employer's right to consider antecedents and fitness, and the need for a careful examination of the nature of the offence and evidence before deferring a candidate's appointment due to a pending crim....
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
