Delhi High Court
Rajender Lal Meena vs Union Of India & Anr. on 15 November, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.8030/2011
% Date of Decision: 15.11.2011
Rajender Lal Meena .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rama Shankar, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
CM No.18090/2011
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) No.8030/2011
1. The petitioner has sought directions against the respondent to
appoint him to the post of Sub Inspector (JE/Overseer) (Civil &
Electrical) in BSF/CISF as per call letter dated 8th February, 2010 and
the admit card issued by the respondents to the petitioner and to also
treat his appointment from the date of passing the fitness test for the
purpose of seniority on notional basis.
2. The petitioner contended that he had participated in the process
of recruitment for the post of SI (JE) Electrical and that he was issued
Roll Number for examination for recruitment to the said post, pursuant
to which he appeared in the written examination held on 14th March,
2010. The petitioner was also issued a call letter dated 8th February,
2010 for the first phase examination. The letter categorically stipulated
that the petitioner's admission to the written examination shall be
provisional.
3. After the written examination, the petitioner was called for the
second phase of selection process by letter dated 15th April, 2010 which
comprised of checking of documentation, physical measurement,
physical efficiency test, interview and medical examination.
4. Pursuant to the medical examination, the petitioner was declared
unfit on account of the petitioner suffering from hypertension.
5. By communication dated 10th May, 2010, the petitioner was
intimated that in case the petitioner prefers to file an appeal against the
finding of the medical examination declaring him unfit, he could apply
in the proper form and after obtaining the necessary medical certificate
from a specialized medical practitioner, the same could be submitted
within one month from the date of the letter dated 10th May, 2010.
6. Against the medical examination declaring the petitioner unfit,
the petitioner preferred an appeal and obtained a medical fitness
certificate dated 25th May, 2010 from the Chief Medical Officer, General
Practitioner, Karauli. The petitioner contended that he had sent the
relevant medical certificate to the respondents requesting that he may
be appointed after conducting the review medical examination.
7. Petitioner asserted that he was informed that he would receive
the intimation about his appointment in due course. The petitioner,
after waiting for some time, also made a representation dated 6th July,
2010, however, he did not receive any response to his representation.
8. Thereafter, the respondent sent a communication dated 2nd
August, 2010 to the petitioner asking him to appear before the Review
Medical Board. The petitioner was intimated that his review medical
examination would be conducted at FHQ Hospital-I, R.K. Puram, New
Delhi on 12th August, 2010. According to the petitioner, he appeared
before the Review Medical Board, which declared him fit for
appointment, however, he had not received any intimation about his
appointment.
9. The petitioner, in the circumstances, has sought directions to the
respondents to appoint him to the post of Sub Inspector and to give him
seniority on notional basis from the date of petitioner's passing the
fitness test.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Himanshu Bajaj,
has appeared on advance notice and contended that the representation
of the petitioner was received by the respondents. It was also
contended that the respondents had also received a communication
dated 15th September, 2011 from the National Commission for
Scheduled Tribes to expedite the requisite information to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced a copy of
the letter dated 1st August, 2011 addressed to Sh. N. Balasubramanian,
Research Officer, National Commission for ST intimating that the
petitioner had qualified all the selection tests except the medical
examination. However, subsequently the petitioner had appeared in
review medical examination held on 12th August, 2010 and had been
declared fit. The respondents also disclosed that the petitioner could
not make it in the final merit test among the qualified candidates of the
ST category and therefore, the appointment letter was not issued to
him.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced a copy of
the merit list of "ST Category" candidates for the post of SI-JE/Overseer
(Electrical)-BSF & CISF. According to the said merit list, the candidate
Bhil Amrit Bhai bearing Roll No.6637 obtained a total of 155 marks,
while another candidate Sh. Tarkeshwar Sah bearing Roll No.7013
scored 122 marks whereas the petitioner, Sh. Rajdender Lal Meena,
bearing Roll No.6412 scored only 120 marks.
12. In the circumstances, it is contended that there was only one seat
for ST category in BSF and, therefore, the petitioner could not make it
in the merit list for the said post and, therefore, he is not entitled for
appointment nor could any appointment letter be issued to him.
13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
also perused the copy of the merit list produced by the learned counsel
for the respondents for the one post reserved for the ST category. The
copy of the merit list has also been shown to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, is
unable to show as to how the petitioner can be appointed to the post of
SI-JE/Overseer (Electrical) in BSF as he is at Sl. No. 3 in the order of
the merit and there is only one vacancy for the said post.
15. No other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. In the
circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for direction to the
respondents as prayed by him.
The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any
merit and it is therefore, dismissed.
CM No. 18089/2011
Since the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed, the
petitioner is not entitled for any direction as prayed by him.
The application for direction is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
November 15, 2011.
rs
