Delhi High Court
Yashvir Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 May, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5194/2016 & CMs No.21611-12/2016
YASHVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Vivek Sharma with
Mr. Mukesh K. Verma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate
for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 31.05.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who had applied
to the respondent/CISF in the year 2013, for the post of a Constable
(Driver), praying inter alia that the orders/reports dated 10.12.2013 and
20.3.2014 declaring him medically unfit, be quashed and set aside and he be
appointed to the said post. The petitioner also seeks to lay a challenge to the
Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test for combined recruitment
of Constables/GD in CAPFs & ARs in CISF, and prays that the same be
declared as ultra vires of the Act.
2. In the first instance, learned counsel for the petitioner has been
requested to address the Court on the maintainability of the present petition,
which is apparently barred by delay and laches. The explanation sought to
be offered for the delay is that the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the
year 2014 (WP(C)No.3721/2014), which he was permitted to withdraw with
liberty to file a fresh petition, but his previous counsel kept informing him
that the certified copy of the orders passed in the said petition, were not
available. It is stated that the petitioner could not do anything in the absence
of the case file and being a resident of District Baghpat, UP, could not
approach his previous counsel for some time due to his personal and
financial difficulty.
3. We are not satisfied with the explanation sought to be offered by the
counsel for the petitioner for explaining the inordinate delay particularly,
when vide order dated 18.3.2015 passed in the earlier petition, liberty was
granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. In any case, we are informed
by learned counsel for the respondents that as of now there are no vacancies
available for the post of Constable (Driver), as advertised in the year 2013.
4. In such circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to hear learned
counsel for the petitioner on the validity of the Guidelines. The said issue is
left open for a decision in a more meritorious case.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has
also made a prayer at clause (d) for expungement of the remarks made in the
rejection slip dated 10.12.2013, "unfit for Government service" as it would
be an impediment for the petitioner to apply for any other Government
service in the future.
6. Counsel for the respondents hastens to clarify that the petitioner has
only been declared unfit for service in the CAPFs and not for any
Government service in the civil field.
7. In view of the said submission, it is clarified that the rejection slip
dated 10.12.2013, which mentions that the petitioner's candidature has been
rejected as "unfit for Government service" is limited to CAPFs and does not
apply across the board to employment options that may be available to him
in Government organizations, public sectors etc.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 31, 2016
sk/mk
