Naim Pal Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 936 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. Against the order made by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6616/2003, the present appeal is preferred.

2. It is required to be noticed that the present appeal is not preferred in time. There is an application for condensation of delay being CM No.8564/2005. The reasons indicated in the application are nothing but throwing burden on the counsel. It has been stated in the application that the counsel was negligent and in such a situation the bare words of the applicant are not required to be considered when the details are not given and the application is absolutely vague. Therefore, we are not required to condone the delay.

3. However, with a view to see that no injustice is done, we have examined the matter on merits also. The question before the learned Single Judge was restricted only about the seniority. Before us, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was Scheduled Caste candidate and it was known to the respondent and, therefore, when he appeared in the examination, he ought to have been considered as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The counsel's attention was invited to page 58 para 2 of the reply filed by the respondent, which makes it clear that the petitioner is guilty of not complying and fulfillling the requirements as laid down by the respondent, as indicated in the advertisement. It was for the appellant to furnish Scheduled Caste/O.B.C. Certificate issued by the Competent Authority, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi before the closing date of the application forms. Since admittedly the appellant did not submit any proof of his belonging to the Scheduled Case category, he was considered in general category. However, he was not selected. Later on Realizing the folly committed by the appellant himself, he appeared again in a test and submitted the requisite certificate. He was selected and was appointed.

4. Now before the Court, he is stating that he should be given seniority from the earlier date. Learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that it could not be so done because the appellant was never appointed earlier and, therefore, there is no quest on of giving seniority.

5. The appeal is dismissed as without any merit.