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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Amrendra Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9192 of 2021 & CM Appl. 28625 of 2021
Decided On : 27-08-2021




The court directed that unaddressed representations be treated as formal requests requiring timely responses within a reasonable period, ensuring administrative accountability.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging Office Memorandum merging the post of Constable/Kahar with Constable (Kitchen Services) - Petitioners originally appointed to Constable (Kahar) and performing duties akin to ward boys - Representation made for cancellation of merger with no response - Court directs treating the writ as a representation and mandates disposal within eight weeks. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Merger of posts - The decision of merging should be reconsidered by the Director General of BSF with a reasoned order. (Paras 5-6)

(C) Judicial review - Court retains the right for aggrieved parties to pursue further actions based on the response received. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed against the merger of the petitioners' posts and emphasized on the lack of response to their appeal.

Findings of Court:
The petition was treated as a representation directing the Director General BSF to respond accordingly.

Issues: Whether the merger of posts was justifiable and the proper recourse for petitions not addressed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the lack of response to the petitioners' representation necessitated judicial direction for action.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. challenge to merger of constable posts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contention against merger of posts. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's directive on representation handling. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Office Memorandum dated 16th October, 2020 and Sign al dated 30th Ju ne, 2021 whereby the post of Constable/Kahar has been merged with the post of Constable (Kitchen Services). Petitioners also seek direction to the Respondents to either continue the petitioners on the post of Constable (Kahar) or assign them on any post in para medical cadre of Border Security Force[BSF].

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners applied for the post of Constable (Kahar) which was announced vide advertisement issued by the DG,BSF. She states that the Petitioners were appointed to the post of Constable(Kahar) and started performing their duties as provided in the Medical Manual issued by Medical Directorate, BSF, which were essentially to look after the patients admitted in the wards, OPD etc,, as somewhat akin to a ward boy in a hospital.

4. She states that the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the impugned Office Memorandum dated 16th October, 2020 whereby, inter alia, the post of constable/kahar was merged with the post of Constable (Kitchen Services).

5. She contends that instead of scrapping the faulty decision of merging the post of Constable (Kahar) with that of Constable(Kitchen Services), the respondents went ahead with the same.

6. She emphasises that the Petitioners submitted a representation to the Director General, BSF praying for cancellation of merger of post of Constable (Kahar) with that of the post of Constable(Kitchen Services) but no response has been received thereto.

7. Issue notice. Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, learned counsel for respondents, accepts notice.

8. Keeping in view of the fact that petitioners representation to the Director General BSF has not been disposed of till date, this Court directs that the present writ petition be treated as a representation to the Director General BSF.He is directed to dispose of the same by way of a reasoned order within eight weeks in accordance with law. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

9. It is clarified that in the event,the petitioners areaggrieved by the decision of the Director General BSF, it shall be open to them to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

10. With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

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