Harsh Bardhan vs Union Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2194 Del

$~5
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 5124/2015 & C.M. No. 9280/2015
       HARSH BARDHAN                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                          Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Mr. Amandeep Joshi and
                          Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocates

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocate for
                     Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for R-1 to R-3
                      Ms. Joymoti Mize, Advocate for Mr. Naresh
                     Kaushik, Advocate for R-4/UPSC.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

% 18.03.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent No.1/Union of India, respondents No.2 and 3/Border Road Development Board (in short 'BRDB') and the respondent No.4/UPSC, for issuing a letter of appointment to him for the post of Administrative Officer in the respondents No. 2 and 3/BRDB from the Reserved Panel against the unfilled vacancies, upon completion of General List Appointment Process with respect to an advertisement issued by the respondent No.4/UPSC on 28.3.2009.

2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 3 had stated that the Department had already approached the UPSC vide letter dated 11.2.2016, requesting it to provide five candidates, including the petitioner herein from the Reserved List.

3. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/UPSC hands over a copy of the letter dated 16.3.2016 addressed by the UPSC to the Secretary Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, enclosing therewith a list of candidates recommended for appointment to the post in General Reserve Engineer Force of the respondents No.2 and 3, wherein the name of the petitioner features at Sr. No. 1. The said letter is taken on record.

4. In view of the aforesaid letter, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present application, which is accordingly disposed of along with the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J MARCH 18, 2016 ap