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
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




The court affirmed the necessity for procedural fairness in administrative decision-making, particularly in response to representations regarding recruitment vacancies.

Headnote:(A) CRPF Recruitment Rules, 2010 - Quashing of Advertisement - Petitioners challenged vacancies notified which were allegedly inconsistent with applicable recruitment rules, and sought recalculation of vacancies for the post of Assistant Commandant - Court found that the respondents failed to address the core issues raised by the petitioners in their representation. (Paras 3, 8)

(B) Procedural Fairness - The court highlighted the need for due process in handling representations and directed that a fresh quantification of vacancies be carried out. (Paras 6, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash a recruitment advertisement due to alleged misalignment with recruitment rules and failure to properly consider their prior representation regarding vacancy recalculation. Respondents had previously been directed to resolve the petitioners' concerns.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the impugned order for failing to address the representation adequately and mandated a fresh decision on vacancy calculations to be communicated to the petitioners.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents appropriately addressed the petitioners' representation regarding vacancy discrepancies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that adherence to procedural fairness is critical, mandating that a fresh order be issued to address the miscalculations presented by the petitioners.

Result: Petition allowed.

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)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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.

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