Digvijay Pratap Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2352 Del

$~13.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 9624/2015
        DIGVIJAY PRATAP SINGH & ORS                         ..... Petitioners
                      Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
                      versus
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS                        ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Giri C. George, Advocate

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

                           ORDER

% 23.03.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by 19 petitioners praying inter alia

for directions to the respondent No.1/Ministry of Home Affairs, UOI and

respondents No.2 and 3/SSC to include their names in the select list and

issue letters of appointment to them for the post of Constable (GD) in BSF,

CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITB or Assam Rifles.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that upon completing the written

and oral examinations and clearing the medical examination, their

candidature was rejected merely on the ground that they had not exercised

all the options in Column 17 of the examination form, pertaining to the

force-preference. In support of his submission that non-filling of the column

could not be a ground to turn down the candidature of the petitioners,

learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 7651/2012 entitled Vinay Kumar

vs. UOI and Ors., that was followed in the judgment dated 23.12.2014,

passed in W.P.(C) 9212/2014 entitled Amit Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. UOI

and Ors.

3. Counsel for the respondents states that the contention of the other side

that the petitioners were not selected on the ground that they had failed to

exercise their option in Column 17 in the examination form pertaining to

force preference is incorrect and the correct position is that their

non-selection is on the ground that they were ineligible merit-wise for

inclusion in the select list for any of the CAPF against vacancies allotted to

the general area of UP, in their respective categories. He states that even

otherwise, the present petition is not maintainable in this Court as all the

petitioners, except for petitioner No.14 are residents of Uttar Pradesh and

they had taken their examination at Allahabad and therefore, no part of the

cause of action had arisen in Delhi for them to have approached this Court

for relief. Petitioner No.14 is stated to be a resident of Uttrakhand and had

appeared in the examinations in Uttrakhand.

4. Counsel for the petitioners concedes that all the petitioners are

residents of Uttar Pradesh except for petitioner No.14, who is a resident of

Uttrakhand and they had sat for their examination for recruitment to the post

of Constable (GD) in the year 2011 at Allahadbad, UP/Uttrakhand. Even

their medical examination was conducted in Allahabad/Uttrakhand. He

states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition while

reserving the right of the petitioners No.1 to 13 and 15 to 19 to approach the

High Court of Allahabad and the petitioner No.14 to approach the High

Court of Uttrakhand, for appropriate relief.

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending

application, with liberty granted to the petitioners No.1 to 13 and 15 to 19 to

file a fresh petition before the High Court of Allahabad and petitioner No.14

to file a fresh petition before the High Court of Uttrakhand, within eight

weeks from today.

6. Needless to state both sides shall be entitled to take all the pleas that

may be available to them, both on facts and in law in case the petitioners

No. 1 to 13 and 15 to 19 file a fresh petition before the Allahabad High

Court and petitioner No.14 files a petition before the High Court of

Uttrakhand, assailing their non-selection.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J MARCH 23, 2016 rkb/ap