IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Md. Riyaz Alam Ansari (Shaurya Chakra) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16460 of 2022 & CM Appls. 51684-685 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of recruitment advertisement and vacancy calculation (Para 3) |
| 2. court's directive for addressing representation (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. observation on inadequacy of impugned order (Para 7) |
| 4. directive for recalculation of vacancies (Para 8) |
| 5. closure of petition with directions (Para 9 , 10) |
CM APPL. 51685/2022(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16460/2022 & CM APPL. 51684/2022
3. Vide the present petition, petitioners prays as under:
i. To quash the advertisement dated 22.04.2022 whereby vacancies notified are not in consonance with the CRPF Recruitment Rules, 2010 and of the letter dated 13.11.2022 whereby petitioner's representation dated 10.09.2022 seeking re-calculation and modification of vacancies for the post of Asst. Comdt. through LDCE 2018-22 was rejected by the respondents;
ii. To direct the respondents to recalculate the vacancies notified in the advertisement dated 22.04.2022 and thereafter increase the same in terms of the CRPF Recruitment Rules of 2010 issued by the Respondents themselves.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the directions passed by this Court in the case of "Md. Riyaz Alam Ansari (Shaurya Chakra) & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors." in W.P.(C) 14663/2022 vide order dated 17.10.2022 whereby this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation dated 10.09.2022 filed by the petitioners within two weeks. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed, however, it has not dealt with the issues raised in the representation dated 10.09.2022.
5. Accordingly, notice issued.
6. Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice and has fairly conceded to the fact that the impugned order has not dealt with the issues raised in the said representation, however, has assured this Court that a fresh order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners.
7. We have perused the impugned order and on perusal of the same, we are of the view that respondents have not quantified the vacancies as raised in the representation dated 10.09.2022.
8. Therefore, at this stage itself, we hereby dispose of the present petition by setting aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 10.09.2022 and calculate the vacancies as prayed by the petitioners in the present petition as well as in the representation dated 10.09.2022 in letter and spirit within four weeks from today and the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week thereafter.
9. Needless to say, if the petitioners still feel aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
10. With the aforesaid directions, present petition as well as pending application stand disposed of.
The court affirmed the necessity for procedural fairness in administrative decision-making, particularly in response to representations regarding recruitment vacancies.
Judicial intervention is warranted when there is undue delay in responding to representations made by citizens, affirming the right to timely administrative action.
The court emphasized the need for the respondents to take a final decision on the recommendations within a specified timeframe.
Judicial remedies require prior administrative representations in employment disputes to ensure procedural compliance.
The court mandated adherence to established recruitment procedures under Rule 9(A), quashing any conflicting directives to ensure timely fulfillment of the recruitment process as published in the ori....
The State is not legally obligated to fill vacant posts if it deems unnecessary, even in the presence of qualified candidates; vacancies do not create rights to appointments.
The court upheld the principle that recruitment vacancies must be determined based solely on existing vacancies for the recruitment year, excluding anticipated future vacancies per statutory rules.
The court upheld the authority of the State to adjust recruitment vacancies, emphasizing the proper application of statutory rules regarding 'year of recruitment' and ensuring adherence to constituti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.