Vishal Yadav vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2759 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 23rd May, 2011

+                         WP(C) NO.3472/2010

VISHAL YADAV                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Manuj Aggarwal with Mr. Bhavya
                                    Sethi, Advocates

                                    Versus

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RECRUITMENT CELL                         ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. Neeraj Choudhary, Advocate.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether 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           No
       in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, belonging to the Other Backward Caste (OBC)

category had in response to the Public Notice Inviting Application for

Recruitment of Constables (Executive Male) in Police applied and had taken

the written examination and the interview and his name was shortlisted and

he was directed to report for medical examination. It is the case of the

petitioner that his name however did not figure in the name of selected

candidates. The petitioner claims that he has cleared the physical endurance

test and no reason, if any, for his medical unfitness has been disclosed.

Averring irregularity in the recruitment process, the present writ petition has

been filed calling for the records of recruitment and seeking mandamus

directing the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the list of

selected candidates.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. No counter affidavit has been filed

inspite of opportunities. However, the counsel for the respondent states that

the counter affidavit is ready and shall be filed within a day.

3. It has however been inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

how the present petition would be maintainable inasmuch as it appears that

the Central Administrative Tribunal would have jurisdiction over the matter.

4. The counsel for the respondent also contends that the present writ

petition is not maintainable and the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is before

the Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. Though the counsel for the petitioner has contended otherwise by

averring that the petitioner is till now not even in the service of the

respondent and as such the question of invoking the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal does not arise but the attention of the counsel is invited to Section

14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 whereunder the Tribunal

has jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment

also.

6. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage seeks to approach the

Tribunal.

7. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to

approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)

May 23, 2011 M