Delhi High Court
Anjana Kumari vs District & Session Judge & Anr. on 21 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3805/2012
% 21st August , 2013
ANJANA KUMARI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K.Santoshi, Adv.
VERSUS
DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks appointment to the post of LDC with the respondent
no.1/District and Session Judge, Delhi.
2. Petitioner participated in selection process and succeeded, however,
the selection process was quashed by a judgment dated 9.8.2010 passed in
L.P.A 417/2010 in the case titled as Anupam Garg Vs. District & Sessions
Judge & Ors. It cannot be disputed that petitioner is one of the candidates in
the selection process which was cancelled in terms of the judgment dated
9.8.2010.
WPC 3805/2012 Page 1 of 3
3. Respondent no.1 thereafter intimated the candidates to re-appear in
the typing test and this has been done by means of UPC, giving notice on the
website of the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, and also by pasting
of the notice on the notice board of the District Court.
4. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.1 shows that UPC notices
were sent to all the candidates to re-appear.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has not received the
information sent through UPC on 13.9.2010. Petitioner therefore claims that
she should be appointed.
6. In my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed for the following reasons:-
(i) As many as 966 candidates were informed to re-appear in the test by
UPC and therefore, I cannot allow only one person to claim ignorance so as
to set aside a subsequent selection process.
(ii) In fact, petitioner really ought to have been vigilant because it is the
petitioner who was seeking employment, and therefore, it cannot be ruled
out that the petitioner would have been regularly following the postings
WPC 3805/2012 Page 2 of 3
made by the respondent no.1 on its website. If however the petitioner has not
done that then the petitioner's indolence cannot help him.
(iii) Fresh selection process which was conducted has been finalized,
appointees have taken their posts, and no further posts are available in terms
of the relevant recruitment process. Once that is so, I would not seek to
exercise my extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India in favour of the petitioner, who either would have knowledge from
the information sent by UPC or of the posting on the website of the District
Court or otherwise has been guilty of lethargy by failing to follow up with
the respondent no.1.
7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of cancelled selection
process some persons have been appointed, however, counsel for respondent
no.1 states that under the cancelled selection only those persons have been
appointed who have cleared the fresh selection process.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 21, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
