Delhi High Court
Sushil Thakran vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing ... on 3 November, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5901/2014 & CM 14475/2014
Date of decision: 03.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUSHIL THAKRAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate
versus
THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma and
Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocates
for R-1 & R-2 with Mr.N.N.Mathur, RM
RO-1
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the present petition
is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission, in view of the
limited relief sought by the petitioner.
2. Before dealing with the case, it may be noted that on the last date
of hearing, in view of the stand taken by the counsel for the respondents
No.1 & 2 that he had not received any instructions from the Department
and was therefore, unable to render any assistance, the court was
compelled to call upon the Regional Manager of the respondents No.1 & 2
to remain present on the next date of hearing, with an explanation for
failing to furnish adequate instructions to its counsel.
3. Mr. N.N. Mathur, Regional Manager of the respondents No.1 & 2 is
present in court and explains that though Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa, is the
nominated counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 and she had accepted a
copy of the paper book and forwarded it to the Department, there was
delay at the end of the Department in assigning the brief to the counsel.
He assures the court that in future, the Department shall take steps to
ensure that necessary instructions are furnished to the counsel who
appears at the stage of admission.
4. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for
issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 & 2/Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and the respondent No.3/National Insurance Co.Ltd. to appoint him
to the post of Assistant Grade-III with all the consequential benefits,
including seniority and promotion etc.
5. As per the averments made in the writ petition, in the year 2013,
the respondent No.3 had issued an advertisement for recruitment of 2600
Assistants in Case III Cadre from open market for public sector General
Insurance Companies including the respondents No.1 & 2. The selection
process comprised of two parts; in the first stage, the candidates were to
sit for the written test and after clearing the said test, those candidates
who would be shortlisted, were to be called for an interview, followed by a
Computer Proficiency Test. The petitioner claims that he fulfilled the
educational qualifications for the subject post as prescribed by the
respondents No.1 & 2 and had participated in the written test on
14.7.2013. On 6.11.2013, the respondent No.3 had issued a list of
shortlisted candidates on the basis of the written examination and the
petitioner's name had figured in the said list. On 18.11.2013, the
petitioner had participated in the final test, i.e., the Computer Proficiency
Test and passed the same. Vide order dated 18.11.2013, the
provisionally selected candidates, including the petitioner herein were
directed to undergo a medical examination prior to the cut-off date fixed,
i.e., 27.11.2013.
6. At the time when the petitioner had submitted himself for medical
examination, he along with the other candidates were called upon to fill
up a form. One of the columns in the Form sought information with
regard to any criminal case pending against the candidate. Admittedly,
at the relevant point in time, FIR No.307/2010 registered by the
petitioner's sister-in-law (brother's wife) against him and the other family
members was pending investigation, but the reply furnished by the
petitioner in the Form was in the negative.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid
oversight on the part of the petitioner by giving an incorrect reply in
response to the aforesaid column that was a part of the Form furnished to
him, by the respondents at the time of undertaking the medical
examination, was made good by him later on, when he was required to fill
up a Verification Form submitted to the respondents on 15.1.2014,
wherein he made a mention about the pendency of the aforesaid FIR.
8. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 had issued a final select list for the
regional office at Delhi and the name of the petitioner had figured in the
said list at Sr.No.6. It is submitted that after that, the respondents did
not take any steps to issue an appointment letter in favour of the
petitioner and finally, he submitted a representation to the
respondents(Annexure P-4) requesting that he be issued an appointment
letter at the earliest, as he had not been convicted for any offence, by any
court of law. Despite the said representation submitted by the petitioner
to the respondents sometime in the month of February 2014, no action
whatsoever has been taken by it till date.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 states that without
admitting any of the averments made by the petitioner in the present
petition, the respondents may be permitted to consider the representation
of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) and take a decision under written
intimation to him.
10. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to
dispose of the present petition, along with pending application with
directions issued to the respondents No.1 & 2 to decide the pending
representation of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today
under written intimation to him. Needless to state that if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondents No.1 &
2, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, in accordance with law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 03, 2014 JUDGE
mk/sk
