W.P.(C) 979/2012 Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: September 13, 2022

Pronounced on: September 28, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 979/2012

AMRESH SHUKLA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Ankur

Chhibber

and

Mr.

Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates

Versus

DIRECTORATE GENERAL, C.I.S.F. AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr.

Sanjay Kumar, Insp./CISF and Mr.

Sunil Kumar Khushwaha, SI/CISF for

R-1

Mr. Shohit Chaudhary and Mr.

Siddhant K. Singh, Advocates for-R-3

SI Prahlad Devenda (CISF)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

1.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant¹

(EXE) in the Central Industrial Security Force² Limited Departmental

Competitive Examination³ -2010 and 2011 under „General‟ category for the

1hereinafter referred to as „AC‟

2hereinafter referred to as „CISF‟

3hereinafter referred to as „LDCE‟

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003976

W.P.(C) 979/2012 Page 2 of 12

year 2010 pursuant to applications invited for the recruitment for the years

2010 and 2011 vide Ministry of Home Affairs⁴ Notification on 16.04.2011.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that though his name appeared in the list

of successful candidates for the year 2010 in order of merit published by the

Union Public Service Commission⁵ and also in the list of recruitment to the

post of AC(EXE) through LDCE 2010-2011 issued by the Director

General⁶, CISF, both dated 21.11.2011, but unfortunately, based on revised

scrutiny and certification by DG, CISF, the UPSC recast the said list of

candidates in order of merit in supersession of the said list of 21.11.2011.

The same resulted in deletion of the name of petitioner from the recasted list

of successful candidates for the year 2010. Subsequently, the DG, CISF

adopted and affirmed the recast list and published it on 10.02.2012.

3.

The petitioner attributes the above to discrepancies and apprehends

that the officials of CISF and UPSC are responsible for this. The petitioner

is aggrieved, firstly as the maximum age limit for the said post of AC(EXE)

in the CISF as per the Notification dated 16.04.2011 was 35 years and he

would be barred by age if not selected and thus be disqualified after 2010

and secondly as the last candidate in the list of successful candidates for the

year 2010 and the petitioner both secured same marks, i.e., there was a tie

break inter-se them, but as there was no „tie breaker principle‟in the

Notification dated 16.04.2011, the name of the petitioner was deleted from

the list of candidates. As per petitioner, his name was not reckoned by CISF

as the CISF wrongly followed the then prevalent principle of UPSC whereby

UPSC reckoned „marks‟ in the written paper rather than „age‟/date of birth

4hereinafter referred as „MHA‟

5hereinafter referred to as „UPSC‟

6hereinafter referred to as „DG‟

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003976

W.P.(C) 979/2012 Page 3 of 12

as the basis for selection of a candidate to the post of AC(EXE) in the case

of a tie-break. The petitioner submits this was contrary to the usual practice

of selecting a candidate on the basis of „age‟/date of birth. To be noted that

amongst the various grounds taken by petitioner, learned counsel has

restricted the arguments only qua the second grievance enumerated

hereinbefore. The same are being dealt in the foregoing paragraphs below.

4.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the foll