Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs Employees State Insurance ... on 7 January, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P(C) No.8752/2010
% Date of Decision: 07.01.2011
Sanjeev Kumar .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Advocate
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation .... Respondent
(ESIC)
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
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?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th November,
2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in
O.A No.3722/2010 titled 'Sanjeev Kumar v. Employees State Insurance
Corporation' dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking
direction to the respondent to declare the petitioner as selected and
appoint him on the post of Nursing Orderly or alternatively to set aside
the selection process and the select list dated 11th May, 2009 and to
direct the respondent to make a fresh selection after calculating and
combining the marks obtained by the candidates in the written
examination and in the interviews.
The respondent had advertised for filling up of number of
vacancies including that of Nursing Orderly a Group 'D' post by
notification dated 13th October, 2007. The petitioner alleged that he
fulfilled the qualification and applied against UR category and the result
was declared in March, 2009, whereby 945 candidates were declared
qualified for the interview. The petitioner appeared for the interview in
April, 2009 but when the select list was issued, his name did not
appear in the select list of 201 candidates which was issued on 11th
May, 2009.
The applicant challenged the select list of 201 candidates which
was issued on 11th May, 2009 by filling an original application on 1st
November, 2010. The Tribunal noted the judgment dated 20th May,
2010 in T.A No.39/2010 titled 'Sh.Rohtash Dabas & Ors v. UOI & Ors'
which was relied on by the petitioner. It was also noticed that the High
Court had set aside the directions given by the Tribunal in the case of
Rohtash Dabas (Supra) and the matter was amicably resolved.
Consequently, it has been held by the Tribunal that the petitioner
cannot claim relief on the basis of the directions which were given by
the High Court in the case of Rohtash Dabas.
Certain other candidates also filed applications in the writ
petition which was filed against the order passed by the Tribunal in the
case of Rohtash Dabas which application was rejected holding that it is
settled law that law does not come to the rescue of those who sleep and
do not assert their rights at the right time. The High Court had also
held that the act of the respondent which was to be challenged came to
light in the month of April, 2009 when the select list was published and
some of the candidates filed W.P(C) No.4255/2010; 4256/2010 and
4257/2010. However, the candidates who had moved the application for
impleadment in the writ petition did not do so expeditiously and,
therefore, their applications were dismissed.
The Tribunal in the facts and circumstances has declined the
relief to the petitioner on the ground that he did not come at the
appropriate stage and all the candidates similar to the petitioners have
already been declined relief by the High Court. Reliance was also placed
on the order passed in O.A No.3175/2010 filed by Sh.Shammi against
dismissal of his original application being O.A No.3175/2010 and
declining the relief to him against which order a writ petition was also
dismissed by the High Court.
The Tribunal, therefore, has declined to give any relief to the
petitioner who had filed the original application on 1st November, 2010.
In the circumstances, it has been held that the applicant would not be
entitled to challenge the select list which was finally declared in April,
2009.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to disclose any
sufficient or cogent reason for not approaching the Tribunal and High
Court when the select list was declared and for the undue delay on his
part. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or any ground which
will make the order of the Tribunal unsustainable or perverse in any
manner. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the order dated 11th November, 2010 dismissing the
petition of the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to declare
him as selected and appoint him to the post of Nursing Orderly or to
carry out a fresh selection after preparing a merit list as has been
claimed by the petitioner.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
JANUARY 07, 2011
'k'
