Delhi High Court
Rajiv Ranjan vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 May, 2016
$~7.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1465/2016
RAJIV RANJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocate for
Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate with petitioner in
person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advocate with
Wg.Cdr. A.K. Chauhan.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 30.05.2016
1. This order is in continuation of a detailed order passed on 11.05.2016
on which date, the relevant facts of the case pertaining to the petitioner who
has prayed for directions to the respondents/Indian Air Force, to grant him a
No Objection Certificate and discharge him from service to enable him to
join the State Bank of India (SBI) at a Group-A post, were encapsulated and
it was deemed appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider his
application dated 03.11.2015, on merits and pass appropriate orders within
two weeks under written intimation to him. It was particularly directed that
while passing the said order, the respondents shall take into consideration
the fact position recorded in the order dated 11.05.2016.
2. Counsel for the respondents hands over a copy of the order dated
25.05.2016 passed by the respondents, whereunder the petitioner's request
for grant of a No Objection Certificate on selection to the post of
Probationary Officer in the SBI, has been rejected on the ground that it is not
in the interest of service discipline. Copy of the order dated 25.05.2016 is
handed over to the other side and taken on record.
3. We may note that on 11.5.2016, we had deliberately refrained from
issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents, directing them to grant a No
Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner in the expectation that they
would on their own take into consideration the persuasive facts of the case
noted in the order dated 11.05.2016, in particular, the fact that it is the last
opportunity that is available to the petitioner for applying for a Group-A
post, as he will be soon attaining the age of 33 years, which is the cut off
date prescribed for an OBC candidate. We had also taken note of the
petitioner's humble socio-economic background, the financial constraints
faced by him and his family members and the manner in which he had made
sincere efforts to complete his graduation with the sheer dint of his hard
work, while still in service in the hope and expectation of making a better
life. The explanation offered by learned counsel for the petitioner for
explaining failure on the part of the petitioner to seek prior permission from
the respondents before applying to the SBI, which was to the effect that he
was mentally stressed due to his mother's grave illness at the relevant point
in time and he had taken remedial measures by applying to the respondents
in November, 2015 for grant ex post facto permission, were also spelt out in
the order dated 11.05.2016, but all of that has been to no avail.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as
noted in the order dated 11.5.2016 and taking into consideration the order
dated 25.05.2016 passed by the respondents, a perusal whereof reveals that
they have completely ignored the observations made by us in paras 9 and 10
of the order dated 11.05.2016, we deem it fit to allow the present petition
and direct the respondents to issue a No Objection Certificate in favour of
the petitioner within one week from today. The petitioner shall submit the
said NOC to the respondent No.5/SBI immediately on receipt thereof and
the SBI shall induct him to the post of a Probationary Officer in the next
batch, which we understand shall be inducted at the end of this year. It is
clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of
seniority on the basis of the letter dated 04.11.2015, issued by the
respondent No.5/SBI intimating him of his selection to the post of a
Probationary Officer.
5. The petition is allowed and disposed of. No orders as to costs.
6. It is clarified that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in
any other matter.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 30, 2016
rkb/mk/ap
