Navpreet Singh Sandhu vs Uoi And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 2664 Del

Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 2664 Del
Judgement Date : 19 May, 2010

Delhi High Court

Navpreet Singh Sandhu vs Uoi And Ors on 19 May, 2010

Author: Gita Mittal

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment - 19th May, 2010


+                      W.P.(C) 3322/2010 & CM No.6664/2010


       NAVPREET SINGH SANDHU        ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr.H.S. Ghuman, Advocate.

                       versus

       UOI AND ORS                           ..... Respondents
                            Through:   Mr.Amar Nath Saini,
                                       Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocates
                                       with Capt.Rahul Soni.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment?                                      No

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  No

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          No

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

CM No.6664/2010

Application is allowed subject to just all exceptions.

W.P.(C) 3322/2010

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by failure of the respondents by

issuing him a call letter for the interview for the 111th Technical

Graduate Course (July 2010) for which he had applied to the

respondent.

2. In view of the urgency expressed by the petitioner on the

ground that interviews for selection to the said course have

commenced by an order passed on 18th May, 2010 we had called

upon the respondents to produce the record relating to the

petitioner.

3. To the extent necessary, the facts in brief are noticed

hereinafter. The respondents no.1 to 3 had issued an

advertisement inviting applications for the Indian Army for the

111th Technical Graduate Course (July 2010) and the 35th Short

Service Commission (Technical) Men in the weekly employment

news for the period 7-13th November, 2009. Being eligible for the

same, the petitioner had submitted his application on 12th

November, 2009 for the 111th Technical Graduate Course along

with attested photocopies of the required documents.

4. On 19th March, 2010, the respondents had uploaded the list

of eligible candidates for the said course on their website, the

petitioner was, however, not included in this list.

5. The petitioner has claimed that along with his father, he had

visited the respondents no.3 and 4 seeking information as well the

reason for non-inclusion of his name. Despite being told that the

petitioner would be informed about the reasons thereof, no

response at all was received. A follow up representation dated 23rd

March, 2010 along with attested copies of requisite certificates

and documents and a personal visit on 29th March, 2010 to the

respondents was also of no avail.

6. In this background, the petitioner was constrained to serve a

legal notice dated 6th April, 2010 to the respondents. Even this did

not evoke any response to let alone a favourable consideration by

the respondent.

7. In this background, the petitioner was constrained to seek

relief by way of the present writ petition.

8. The original application submitted by the petitioner has been

placed before us. We find that in Column no.14 of the application

the petitioner had mentioned the list of documents which have

been attached by him with it. These include attested photocopy of

the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Secondary

Education to the petitioner. At serial no.(b) the petitioner has

mentioned that he has enclosed an attested photocopy of his

Engineering Degree Certificate.

9. We have been informed by Captain Rahul Soni that the

petitioner's candidature has been rejected for the reason that he

failed to enclose the attested photocopy of the requisite degree

despite the advertisement which informed the petitioner of the

requirements.

10. We have carefully perused the original application as well as

the enclosures which have been submitted by the petitioner. We

find that the petitioner has submitted the attested photocopy of the

certificate with regard to the All India Secondary School

Examination 1999.

11. We find that the photocopy of the degree as mentioned in the

application form is not available in the record produced before us.

However, the attested photocopies of the complete result that is

the marks sheets issued to the petitioner for the eight semesters of

the course of Bachelor of Technology (Computer Science and

Engineering) issued by the Punjab Technical University are

enclosed along with the original application form.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

attested photocopy of the degree was also enclosed and the

petitioner cannot be faulted for the respondent's fault in

misplacing the same.

13. We are not required to go into this last issue for the reason

we are noticing hereafter.

14. Our attention is drawn to the advertisement issued by the

respondents inviting the application. At serial no.17, the

respondents have given the details of the enclosures which were

required to be enclosed with the application form. So far as the

description of the essential certificates which the applicant was

required to enclose, the respondents have informed the candidates

at serial no.17(b) that they were required to enclose either the

original degree certificate for B. Tech or the independent marks

sheets of all years/ semester/ part of engineering degree for those

candidates who had already passed the said course. The

respondents have required only photocopy of the requisite

documents to be filed with the application.

15. The petitioner has passed the B.Tech Course. The original

application form produced before us shows that the petitioner has

enclosed the attested independent marks sheets for all semesters

of engineering degree course which he had undertaken. This

clearly meets the requirement of the stipulations contained in the

advertisement issued by the respondents.

16. In view of the above, the application form of the petitioner

could not have been rejected on the sole ground that though in the

body of the application form he mentioned that he had enclosed an

attested photocopy of the engineering degree certificate, he had

actually enclosed the copies of all the required marks sheets. Even

if the respondents were holding against the petitioner, they did not

care to respond to the petitioner's queries or representation. It

however remains a fact, that the application form produced before

us complies with the notified requirements.

17. In this background, the petitioner was entitled to a

favourable consideration of his application form and could not have

been denied participation in the interview and selection process.

18. We are informed that selection process for the course is not

complete and the interviews for the same are underway.

19. In view of above, we direct as follows:-

(i) the respondents shall forthwith issue a communication to

the petitioner informing him of the date and venue of the

interview for consideration selection for 111th Technical

Graduate Course (July 2010).