Delhi High Court
Mohit Chauhan And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 May, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 24th May, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 4768/2016, CM Nos.19876-877/2016
MOHIT CHAUHAN AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal with Ms. Ruchika Sharma &
Mr. Aman Mudgal, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Adv. for R- 1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition impugns the order dated 16th March, 2016
passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
in two OAs, namely OA No.1604/2015 and OA No.1953/205. The
two OAs were filed by two separate set of candidates raising
somewhat different grounds. The impugned order would show that
the two OAs have been disposed of by one judgment but in two parts.
The first part deals with OA No.1604/2015 and the second part
independently examines the contentions and issues raised in OA
No.1953/2015.
2. In these circumstances, we had asked learned counsel for the
petitioners to make a choice and file a separate writ petition in respect
of either OA No.1604/2015 or OA No.1953/2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ
petition may be treated as preferred against the decision in OA
No.1604/2015 and he will prefer a separate writ petition against the
decision in OA No.1953/2015. We take the statement on record and
accordingly dispose of the writ petition treating it as preferred by
Mohit Chauhan, Karmbir, Vinit Godara, Sandeep Kumar and Govind
Singh who were the applicants in OA No.1604/2015.
4. By employment notice No.34303/LRS 12-13/EIB(S) MES, a
number of civilian posts in Indian Military Service were advertised.
This advertisement was published on 13.12.2014 and the last date for
receipt of applications was 3rd January, 2015, 1700 hours for all
candidates and 10th January, 2015, 1700 hours for candidates
belonging to the specified States or Districts. The last date for receipt
of applications was extended thrice thereafter to 3rd February, 2015,
3rd March, 2015 and finally to 3rd April, 2015. This was done by issue
of corrigendums.
5. The petitioners herein filed OA No.1604/2015 impugning the
extension of time granted by way of the three extensions. The
contention of the petitioner is that before 3rd January, 2015 more than
4500 applications had been received in Delhi for the 95 vacant posts
of Mate (SSK) and hence the three extensions were not required and
have caused prejudiced. Ultimately 63,520 candidates had applied as
per the information received by the petitioners under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
6. The respondent, in response to the said contention, in their
reply had stated that the three extensions for receipt of applications
were granted to enable candidates from all over India to apply. The
idea was to select the best candidates. The advertisement dated
13.12.2015 had invited applications for as many as 11 different posts.
The advertisement was not restricted to vacancies in Mate (SSK) in
Delhi region. 2265 vacancies for the post of Mate (SSK) were
advertised. The posts carried an 'All India Service Liability' and
names of different Commands were indicated.
7. The Tribunal, by an interim order, had allowed five petitioners
to participate in the written examination and had subsequently called
for the examination results. It is noticed that none of the five
applicants had qualified and the marks obtained were less than marks
obtained by the last selected candidate for the next stage.
8. We do not think that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in
the present writ petition. Extension of date was an administrative
decision. The respondent must be granted and should be given
flexibility and latitude to fix dates or extend the date. Interference
would be rare, perhaps in unusual cases. The extension cannot
certainly be struck down and declared as violating any constitutional
or statutory right because some persons/ candidates had applied on or
before the first cut of date. This cannot be a ground to strike down
the extension by a judicial decision. As noticed above, the
advertisement had specified there were in all 2265 vacant posts of
mate (SSK) to be filled up in different zones. It was all India
selection. The respondents wanted a better response. In this context,
they had extended the dates.
9. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No costs.
10. We have granted liberty to the petitioners namely Pradeep
Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Usha, Vijay Kumar Sehrawat and Kapil
Sehrawat to independently file another writ impugning the order
dated 16.3.2016 passed in OA No.1953/2016. Nothing in the present
order will be construed as expression of opinion on the impugned
order passed in OA No.1953/2015.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 24, 2016/ak
