Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Jai Mal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.10.2014
+ W.P.(C) 5028/2014
CT/GD JAI MAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.L. Bareja, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Abhishek Kr. Choudhary, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This writ petition seeks the setting aside of orders dated 5th
March, 2014 and 17th April, 2014 which rejected the petitioner's
representation for appointment to the post of SI(GD) in the CRPF
through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The
respondents had issued a notification dated 18th February, 2008
seeking applications from the force personnel for filling up 66
vacancies on the post of SI/GD. The allocation for the posts was: 33
for General, 18 for OBC, 10 for SC and 5 for ST.
________________________________________________________________
2. The petitioner's case is that of the 6 stages he qualified upto
Stage-V, including the written test and appeared for the interview on
15th May, 2008. However, in the result of LDCE-2008 which was
notified on 26.6.2008, indicating the list of 65 successful candidates,
he did not find his name. The petitioner relies upon an order in Writ
Petition (C) No.1510/2007 namely Ct/GD Barot Jignesh Kumar v.
Union of India & Ors. which on 2nd May, 2008 had directed the
respondents to reconsider whether the provision of obtaining
minimum qualifying marks in the interview was to be retained. It is
submitted that the LDCE-2008 result was wrongly declared because
the Government's decision apropos the direction in WP(C)
No.1510/2007 came only in the year 2010.
3. This Court notices that the impugned order dated 05.03.2014,
clearly records that as per standing order No.7/2000, qualifying marks
for General/OBC Category is 45% in each paper and 50% in aggregate
and for SC/ST Category; it is 40% in each subject and 45% in
aggregate. The impugned order had re-examined the marks secured by
the petitioner in each subject and found that he had secured 55.33% in
aggregate in Paper I, II and III and had also secured the minimum
qualifying marks in each paper i.e., 45%. Accordingly, he was
selected for Stage IV i.e., Personality Test and thereafter, for Stage V.
After getting selected in Stage V, the petitioner attended the interview
i.e., Stage VI but could not secure the minimum 45% as mentioned in
para 6 (d) of the Standing Order 7/2000. Hence, his representation was
rejected, being devoid of merit.
________________________________________________________________
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision
of non-inclusion of the petitioner only on the ground that he did not
secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview is contrary to the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ct/GD Barot
Jignesh Kumar (supra) and also contrary to the subsequent decision
taken by the MHA dispensing with the requirement of obtaining
minimum qualifying marks in the interview.
5. This Court had directed the IGP, Western Sector, CRPF to file
an affidavit in this regard. We have perused the copy of the affidavit
and find that the petitioner had secured 527 marks, including the 40
marks in the interview; whereas the last selected candidate had
secured 580 marks including 62 marks in the interview. If the 40
marks, secured by the petitioner in the interview were to be excluded,
he would be left with 487 marks as compared to the 518 (580-62)
marks secured by the last selected candidate in the General Category.
6. Mr. Bareja, the learned counsel for the petitioner has seen the
record file containing the marks obtained by the petitioner. His
objection is that these are only photocopies. We are of the view that
on merit insofar as the marks obtained, both with and without the
interview marks, are way below the marks secured by the last selected
candidate in the General Category, the petitioner does not qualify for
being selected. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petitioner's case.
In any case, this petition suffers from delay and laches of over six
years and cannot be entertained at this stage when the candidates
selected through LDCE of 2008 have been inducted into the post of
________________________________________________________________
SI/GD and would have carried on with their duties. Their position
cannot be disturbed. The petition is frivolous and is dismissed with
costs of Rs.25,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Delhi High Court
Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks from today. A compliance
report be put up before the Court on 10th November, 2014.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
OCTOBER 10, 2014/ak
________________________________________________________________
