Gopal Saini vs Union Of India And Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 6747 Del

$~49 and 50.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 10507/2017 and CM APPL. 43005-43006/2017
       W.P.(C) 10509/2017 and CM APPL. 43011-43012/2017
       GOPAL SAINI                                     ..... Petitioner
       MAHESH                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Mr. Pallav Kumar,
                          Mr. Dibya Nishant and Mr. Gautam Mann,
                          Advocates

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                     ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Ms. Ridhima Gaur
                     and Mr. Anil Dabas, Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

                          ORDER

% 27.11.2017

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents/BSF to conduct a re-examination of the typing test that they had undertaken during the second phase of the recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in BSF 2016-17 and thereafter, declare them as successful.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in November, 2016, the respondent No.2/BSF had issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). As the petitioners fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, they had applied for the said post by submitting applications. On 23.04.2017, the petitioners had appeared in the written

examination test conducted by the respondents. The results were declared on 03.08.2017, wherein the petitioners were declared as successful. On 13.08.2017, the respondent No.2/BSF had issued call letters to the petitioners, calling upon them to undergo a typing test on 11.09.2017, for which they reported at 32 Bn. BSF, Sirsa Road, Hisar, Haryana at 8 AM.

3. Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners states that during the aforesaid typing test, the petitioners were not permitted to use their own keyboard and mouse, though the call letters had permitted the candidates to bring their own keyboard and mouse for the typing test. After the results of the typing test were declared, the petitioners found that they were not successful, having failed. After a gap of almost one month, on 10.10.2017, the petitioners filed their representations before the respondent No.2/BSF, requesting that they be permitted to sit for a re-examination of the typing test as they were not allowed to use their own keyboard and mouse.

4. We have enquired from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any protest in this regard was lodged by the petitioners on the date of the examination itself, i.e., on 11.09.2017, or the very next day or within a week from 11.9.2017. He concedes that no such protest was lodged by the petitioners on 11.09.2017 or even thereafter, till as late as on 10.10.2017.

5. We are of the opinion that the present petitions are highly belated. If the petitioners had a genuine grievance, they ought to have lodged a protest with the respondent No.2/BSF at the spot or at least within a reasonable time from the date of the examination. That not being the position, we are not inclined to entertain the present petitions, wherein the petitioners seek re- examination of the typing test at this belated stage. The prayer made in the petitions is declined.

6. The petitions are dismissed in limine, alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

REKHA PALLI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2017 rkb/ap