Jitender Singh Garakoti vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5187 Del

$~

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                               Date of Decision : August 31, 2012


+                          WP(C) 5419/2012

      JITENDER SINGH GARAKOTI                            ...Petitioner
                    Represented by:            Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate


                                     versus


      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              ...Respondents
                    Represented by:            Mr.D.S.Mehandru, Advocate


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner does not desire the benefit of relaxation of any physical standard which is available to candidates falling in the categories of Garhwalis or Kumaonis.

2. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondents states that the matter could be heard for disposal today itself.

3. An advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection Commission to recruit Constables in various Central Para Military Forces. State-wise vacancies were listed in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the purpose was that all citizens of India from different States should not only compete but there should be regional representation as well. We understand.

4. But, the advertisement does not states that only Punjabis could apply from Punjab or only Garhwalis/Kumaonis could apply from Uttrakhand.

5. With every citizen of India having a right to reside anywhere in India, in public employment, whenever regional recruitment is made, it is with reference to domicile and as regards the petitioner it is undisputed that his father is a permanent employee of Government of NCT Delhi in the Public Works Department and the petitioner did his schooling from Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya No.2 West Patel Nagar where he obtained the Secondary School Certificate on clearing the Class-X examination and thereafter obtained the Senior Secondary Certificate on successfully clearing the Class-XII examination from the Government Boys Sr.Secondary School, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in the year 2010 and is currently pursuing a degree course from the University of Delhi. The petitioner also has a validly issued domicile certificate with him. The petitioner has been living in Delhi since his childhood days i.e. the year 1996.

6. The petitioner submitted his application for being appointed as a Constable from Delhi. He took the examination at Delhi. In the list of successful candidates who cleared the written test his name was in the Delhi list.

7. Vide impugned order dated February 12, 2011 the petitioner has been informed that he was treated as a candidate in the quota for Uttrakhand and with reference to the merit list for said State was found not having qualified.

8. The action is incorrect for the reason the petitioner is a resident of Delhi. His entire childhood including the schooling was in Delhi. He continues to pursue his higher education at Delhi. He is a domicile of Delhi.

9. The city of Delhi is a city of migrants. We speak for ourselves. Our ancestral roots are in the territories which comprise Pakistan today. Our forefathers migrated to Delhi on partition. Can it be said that we are not entitle to call ourselves Delhiwallas and apply for being considered for a benefit available to the residents of the city of Delhi.

10. With migration taking place in India due to urbanization and job opportunity, we would only highlight that the last census figures reveal that in urban areas at least 20% had migrated from one area to the other in search of avocations. Thus, it is domicile which matters and not the roots of one's ancestors.

11. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated February 10, 2011 and direct the respondents to process petitioner's entitlement to be appointed as a Constable as per his merit position in the list of successful candidates pertaining to Delhi and offer his appointment if he successfully clears the remainder recruitment tests.

12. But because of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court late we direct that if the empanelled candidates have already undergone the training, the petitioner would be deputed for training along with the next

batch and as regards his seniority the Next Below Rule shall apply. His enrollment would also stand deferred.

13. No costs.

14. DASTI.

CM No.11039/2012 Since the appeal itself stands disposed of, instant application seeking interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 31, 2012 dk