Delhi High Court
Deepak Yadav vs Uoi And Ors on 25 October, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
16
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.6941/2010
Date of Decision : 25th October, 2010
%
DEEPAK YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Bhagwati Yadav, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petitioner has challenged the rejection of his
candidature for appointment to the post of Constable/GD to the
Central Reserve Police Force („CRPF‟ hereafter) on the 24 th of
September, 2010 by way of the present writ petition.
2. Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents
appearing on advance notice has produced the original record
relating to the petitioner which includes his application, board
proceedings as well as comments on the writ petition.
3. A grievance has been made in the writ petition that
pursuant to an advertisement dated 1st August, 2010, the
petitioner had submitted an application for appointment to the
post of Constable/GD on 17th August, 2010. The writ petitioner
contends that he had submitted all "required documents" with
the application form and was called for the physical test which
was to be conducted on 24th September, 2010 at the 89th
Battalion Ground at Bawana, Delhi. The petitioner claims to
have successfully completed all requirements of the physical
test and that he also showed all the "necessary documents and
their photocopies" except the photocopy of the migration
certificate. The petitioner claims to have produced the original
of the migration certificate also before the Selection Committee
on the same date.
4. The petitioner alleges that he was required by the
respondents to get a photocopy of the migration certificate
prepared and for this purpose, he had left the 89th Battalion,
CRPF and returned within five minutes of his departure with the
photocopy. The prayer of the petitioner is premised on his
contention that he had successfully completed the race of 5
kms. Allegations have been levelled against one, Shri Pardeep
Singh Sabharwal who was involved in the selection process,
who according to the petitioner did not permit re-entry and
completion of the selection process.
Because of the obstructions, caused by Shri Pardeep
Singh Sabharwal, the petitioner claims to have been wrongly
disqualified whereupon the petitioner had complained to the
local police in this regard. The petitioner places reliance on a
written representation dated 25th September, 2010 apparently
submitted by him to the Director General of the CRPF as well as
to the DIG, Sanjayranjan Ojha concerned with the recruitment
cell of the CRPF in support of his contentions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also
perused the original record produced by the respondents
before us. We find that the advertisement which was published
by the respondents in the Mahanagar dated 23rd July, 2010 as
well as in the Employment News clearly notified the candidates
to the following effect:-
"12. No documents/testimonials/ caste
certificates etc are to be sent with the
application form. However, when the
candidate report at the venue on the
date and time for recruitment
process, he/she should bring the
documents in original along with one
attested photocopy of the same as
mentioned in para-8(iii) of information
booklet."
7. So far as the details of the documents which the
candidates were required to produce are concerned, the
candidates stood notified that they were required to produce,
inter alia, the matriculation certificate as proof of their age.
Furthermore, in view of the above stipulation, there was no
requirement for submission of any documents with the
application form. The original application of the petitioner
which has been produced for re-examination also does not
include any enclosure thereto.
8. The Board proceedings conducted between 20th
September, 2010 to 1st October, 2010 have been placed before
us. It appears that the petitioner was unable to produce the
original matriculation certificate at the time of examination of
his application and his candidature was rejected for this reason.
The respondents have rejected not only the petitioner but a
total of 32 candidates who were similarly placed.
9. The instructions which were duly notified to the
candidates in the Employment News as well as the instruction
booklet which was made available along with the application
form, clearly disclosed that the candidates were required to
produce not only the original matriculation certificate but also
an attested photocopy of the same. Therefore, even if the
petitioner was to be believed, he did not have the attested
photocopy with him.
10. The contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition are
belied by the nature of allegations which have been made in
the representation dated 27th September, 2010. The petitioner
in the representation dated 25th/27th September, 2010 has
made allegations of his being asked for bribe by the
aforenoticed CRPF personnel for selection and contended that
unparliamentary language was used against him. No such
allegation is to be found in the writ petition. The above
narration of the facts would show that the assertions made by
the petitioner are incorrect and legally untenable.
11. There is nothing on record which even remotely supports
the petitioner‟s contention that the recruitment process was
not conducted in a fair manner.
12. For all the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ
petition which is hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
OCTOBER 25, 2010
mk
