Delhi High Court
Beerabahadur Yadav And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr on 6 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : April 06, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6603/2016
BEERABAHADUR YADAV AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CM No.12629/2018
Delay of 29 days in filing the rejoinder is condoned for the reasons
stated in the application.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.6603/2016 & CM No.41371/2017
1. In pursuance to advertisement No.3/2015, petitioners had applied for
the post of Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control) and had cleared the online
examination and were called for the interview. The grievance of petitioners
in this petition is that final result in respect of the aforesaid post advertised
had not been declared. Quashing of first phase of interview conducted in
respect of 1028 candidates is also sought. A mandamus is also sought to
respondents to consider calling 2800 candidates for the interview.
According to petitioners, as per the existing policy, 1100 candidates ought to
have been issued joining letters whereas only 400 candidates have been
W.P.(C) No.6603/2016 Page 1
issued joining letters. As per advertisement No.3 of 2015 (Annexure P-1),
400 posts of Junior Executives (Air Traffic Control) were advertised. In the
counter affidavit filed by respondent-Airport Authority of India, it is
asserted that offer of appointment was made to 400 selected candidates as
per the order of merit. According to second respondent, the select list was
drawn purely on merits and after considering the performance of the
candidates. As per the additional affidavit of second respondent, the marks
obtained by petitioners and the cut off marks/percentage have been disclosed
and cut off marks obtained by the selected candidates in the third selection
list have been also disclosed. Petitioners by way of an application have
sought to amend the writ petition to implead one of the Members of the
Interview Board against whom, petitioners have levelled allegations of bias.
2. Upon hearing, it transpires that the final result of the examination in
question was declared way back on 29th June, 2016 and this writ petition has
been filed on 27th July, 2016. However, the selected candidates have not
been impleaded as respondents in this writ petition. Learned counsel for
petitioners submits that petitioners were not aware as to who are the selected
candidates. No RTI information has been sought by petitioners to obtain the
list of the selected candidates. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that
once the details of the selected candidates are provided by second
respondent to petitioners, they would like to assail the selection of those 400
candidates.
3. In the aforenoted facts of the instant case, it is deemed appropriate to
direct second respondent to supply the list of the selected candidates and
their addresses to petitioners within four weeks, so that petitioners may
W.P.(C) No.6603/2016 Page 2
effectively challenge the appointment of selected candidates after
impleading them. Instead of permitting petitioners to amend the writ
petition to allege bias against one of the Members of the Interview Board, it
is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and the application with
permission to petitioners to file a fresh writ after impleading the selected
candidates.
4. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of with
liberty as aforesaid.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2018
mamta
W.P.(C) No.6603/2016 Page 3
