Ct./Gd (Now Hc/M) Karamvir Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4226 Del

$~1&2
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Decision: July 17, 2012

+                          W.P.(C) 4026/2012

      CT./GD (NOW HC/M) KARAMVIR SINGH           ..... Petitioner
           Represented by: Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate.

                    versus

      UOI & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
          Represented by: Mr.Satya, Advocate for Mr.Ankur
                          Chhibber, Advocate

                           W.P.(C) 4027/2012

      CT./GD (NOW HC/M) BAJRANG LAL KHAROL ..... Petitioner
           Represented by: Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate.

                    versus

      UOI & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
          Represented by: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Relevant record pertaining to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2007 held by CRPF, pertaining whereto grievance has been made in the above-captioned writ petitions has been produced by the respondents which would reveal that the last empanelled candidate in the list of General category secured 578 marks and of the 32 empanelled candidates in the OBC category the last empanelled candidate obtained 529 marks.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioners, as pleaded by them

is that the result of the examination declared on September 18, 2007 is vitiated on two counts. Firstly that the post in question i.e. SI/GD for which the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination was held being a promotion post, no reservation could be made for OBC candidates and secondly that the OBC candidates could under no circumstances be appointed against unreserved vacancies.

3. As regards the second plea, suffice would it be to state that a person in a reserve category can always opt to compete in the general category. It is the first issue which merits consideration.

4. However, we are not inclined to grapple with the issue for the reason, the writ petitioners admit having knowledge of the results declared on September 18, 2007. They kept quiet all these years. The empanelled candidates have been issued the promotion orders and since September 2007 are working on the promotional post. The petitioners, of their own pleadings, got issued legal notices on April 09, 2012 and thereafter have filed the above captioned writ petitions in this Court on July 09, 2012. The legal notices were got issued after about four years and six months.

5. Delay and laches clearly hit the writ petitioners.

6. That apart, even if this Court were to upset the apple cart, the writ petitioners would get no benefit inasmuch as we find that the writ petitioner of WP(C)No.4026/2012 has obtained 546 marks and the writ petitioner of WP(C)No.4027/2012 has obtained 550 marks. As per the writ petitioners no reservation could be made for OBC candidates. Now, in the merit list pertaining to candidates in the general list, record evidences that the last empanelled candidate had obtained 578 marks

which includes a few candidates in the OBC category as well. Thirty two posts have been filled up in the OBC category and of which we find that the person till Serial No.25 in the said list has obtained marks 551 and above and thus these candidates would in any case rank above the two writ petitioners. Seven OBC candidates out of thirty two have obtained marks between 529 to 549 and these seven who would be knocked out but to replace them, petitioners would not find themselves empanelled because we find from the record that about seventeen unreserved candidates have obtained marks between 550 and 578 i.e. marks above the two petitioners and below the marks obtained by the last empanelled candidate in the unreserved category. Seven out of these seventeen candidates would find themselves empanelled, but they have not approached this Court.

7. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed in limine.

8. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JULY 17, 2012 rk