Rahul Kumar Meena vs Union Of India And Ors.

$~34

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Judgment: 26.03.2019

+      W.P.(C) 7804/2018

       RAHUL KUMAR MEENA                                       ..... Petitioner

                              Through:   Mr. M.D. Janger, Advocate.

                              versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                              ..... Respondents

                              Through:   Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
                                         Mr.Dhruv Pande, Advocates for R-5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

C.M. Appl. No. 13648/2019 (for delay)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the review petition.

2. Notice. Counsel for the non-applicant accepts notice.

3. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the review petition stands condoned.

4. C.M. stands disposed of.

REVIEW PETITION No. 122/2019 in W.P.(C) 7804/2018 Page 1 of 4 REVIEW PETITION No. 122/2019

5. The applicant/respondent seeks review of the judgment dated 10.1.2019 more particularly the directions contained in paras 8 and 9 which we reproduce below:-

"8. In the given facts of the case, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be appointed as a Constable (GD) in CISF which would be the Force allocated to him as per his merit position in the ST category as informed to us by the petitioner.

9. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 23.05.2018 and direct the respondents to issue an offer of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) in CISF within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly given up the claim of seniority and back wages, no further orders are required in the present writ petition."

6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner/respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-8 which indicates the order of preference given by the petitioner for allocation of Force at the time of his application.

7. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the first preference of the petitioner was NIA, second was SSF and the third preference was ITBP. CISF was given by the petitioner as the fifth preference. It is pointed out that on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court has in the operative part of the judgment directed REVIEW PETITION No. 122/2019 in W.P.(C) 7804/2018 Page 2 of 4 that offer of appointment be given to the petitioner as a Constable in CISF. It is submitted that even the respondents at that point had inadvertently failed to point out that CISF was the fifth preference of the petitioner.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for allocation of ITBP there was no cut-off of marks and in any case CISF was his fifth preference and thus there is no error in the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 10.1.2019.

9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. We find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. It is undisputed that allocation to a particular Force is by considering merit-cum-preference. As per the respondents applying the merit-cum-preference criteria, petitioner becomes entitled to be allocated ITBP and not CISF. Thus the direction in the judgment regarding allocating CISF to the petitioner in para 8 is recalled and accordingly consequential directions in para 9 are also recalled.

10. Resultantly, the review petition is allowed and the words „CISF‟ in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment dated 10.1.2019 shall read as „ITBP‟. Paras 8 and 9 would thus read as under:-

"8. In the given facts of the case, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be appointed as a Constable (GD) in ITBP which would be the Force allocated to him as per his merit position in the ST category as informed to us by the petitioner.

9. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 23.05.2018 and direct the respondents to issue an offer of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) in ITBP within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly given up the claim of seniority and back wages, no further orders are required in the present writ petition."

11. The review petition is accordingly disposed of.

12. The order passed today will be read as part of the judgment. As and when certified copy of the judgment dated 10.1.2019 is sought for, the order passed today will also be provided along with the said judgment.

                                                          G.S.SISTANI, J




MARCH 26, 2019/AK                                         JYOTI SINGH, J




REVIEW PETITION No. 122/2019 in W.P.(C) 7804/2018                           Page 4 of 4