Delhi High Court
Raj & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 March, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11326/2015 and CM APPL. 29709/2015
RAJ & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with
Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Shivam Chanana,
Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocates and Mr. B.K.
Rout, Pairvy Officer and Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law
Officer, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 17.03.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for issuance of directions to the respondents/CRPF to appoint them as
Constables (GD), pursuant to the examination conducted by the Staff
Selection Commission.
2. Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that in the year 2013, the petitioners had applied for the post of Constable
(GD) pursuant to the Recruitment Notice issued by the respondents and
they had cleared the written examination on 28.11.2013. Thereafter, the
petitioners had appeared in the Medical Examination and had cleared the
same. When the list of successful candidates was published by the
respondents, it transpired that the petitioners were shown as appointed in
the CRPF. However, the petitioners did not receive any intimation from the
respondents for several months and finally, were compelled to file the
present petition.
3. Notice was issued on the present petition on 07.12.2015, returnable
for 05.02.2016. The respondents were directed to file their respective
counter affidavits, which have still not been filed. Today, counsel for the
respondents states that he need not file the counter affidavit.
4. It is informed by the counsel for the respondents that vide letter dated
28.08.2015, CRPF had forwarded the dossiers of 25 petitioners along with
981 other dossiers of suspected cases of impersonation for appointment to
the Group Centre at Allahabad with the remarks that during the general
scrutiny of the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) and the signatures of these
candidates, there appeared some discrepancies, which were required to be
verified. In the light of the said opinion, the respondents had forwarded the
dossier of a total of 1006 candidates to the CFSLs, at Hyderabad, Pune,
Guwahati and Kolkata between November, 2015 and January, 2016, for
further examination and a report.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reports from
some of the above CFSL centres are likely to be received in the near future
and many are still awaited. He states that as soon as the reports are
received, the respondents shall process the cases of the petitioners and other
similarly placed candidates, in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respondents, the present petition is disposed of with directions to
the respondents to pursue the matter with the concerned CFSLs and on
obtaining the reports, decide the fate of each of the petitioners.
7. The CFSL centres noted above are directed to expedite their reports
and forward the same to the respondents preferably within three months
from today so that they may take a decision with regard to the candidature
of the petitioners and other similarly placed candidates at the earliest, in
accordance with law.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 17, 2016
rkb/ap
