Delhi High Court
Balram Katara vs Union Of India & Anr. on 4 September, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : September 04, 2012
+ WP(C) 5465/2012
BALRAM KATARA ...Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Saqib, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Since the facts stated in the writ petition are not disputed, with
consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed
of today itself.
2. Employed as a Constable (GD) in CRPF the petitioner took the
CPO Examination - 2009 held by Staff Selection Commission for the post of
Sub-Inspector. The results were declared on July 20, 2010. In spite of
having qualified at the written examination as also the interview and
notwithstanding petitioner having obtained marks above the cut-off point, he
was surprised to note that against his result, it was written: 'Over-age'. The
petitioner represented that being in service, as per the advertisement in
question, he was entitled to a age relaxation for the period notified in the
advertisement, and correcting itself, the Staff Selection Commission treated
petitioner as an eligible candidate, but still did not forward the name of the
petitioner to the Ministry of Home Affairs, which would have then issued the
necessary directive to the concerned Central Para Military Force to issue a
letter of appointment to the petitioner. The reason was a complaint received
by the Staff Selection Commission that at the written examination, with
respect to some candidates, which included the petitioner, there was
impersonation. The petitioner was called upon on January 19, 2011 to give
his specimen hand writing and signatures, which were forwarded, along with
the answer sheet of the petitioner, to the Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents at Shimla on February 02, 2011, and till date, the
Staff Selection Commission or the Ministry of Home Affairs has not bothered
to ensure that the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents sends an
opinion on the reference made.
3. Only yesterday, i.e., on September 03, 2012 deciding W.P.(C)
No.5454/2012 Aman Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. wherein similar issue had been
raised, we had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to
ensure that the opinion sought from the Government Examiner of Questioned
Documents at Shimla is positively obtained within 3 weeks from today and
the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment if the opinion is in favour of
the petitioner. If the opinion is against the petitioner, the process of law with
respect to the petitioner being granted an opportunity of fair hearing before
the final decision is taken be resorted to. In either case, the decision taken to
be conveyed to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of the decision.
The reason was that more than one and half year had elapsed since matter
was referred for opinion to the Government Examiner of Questioned
Documents.
4. Instant writ petition also stands disposed of directing the
respondents to ensure that the opinion sought from the Government Examiner
of Questioned Documents at Shimla is positively obtained within 3 weeks
from today and the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment if the opinion
is in favour of the petitioner. If the opinion is against the petitioner, the
process of law with respect to the petitioner being granted an opportunity of
fair hearing before the final decision is taken be resorted to. In any case, the
decision would be conveyed to the petitioner either way within 4 weeks from
today.
5. No costs.
6. Dasti.
C.M.No.11149/2012 (for stay)
Since writ petition stands disposed of, instant application whereunder
interim orders are prayed for is dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
'anb'
