Delhi High Court
Leslie K. David vs Centre For Development Of ... on 20 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : February 20, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1596/2018 & CM No.6547/2018
LESLIE K. DAVID ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amitesh Gaurav, Advocate
versus
CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Brajesh Kumar, Advocate for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Declaration of result of departmental examination conducted by
respondent in terms of circular/Advertisement of 29th September, 2016
subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No.21682/2016 pending before the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is sought in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had undertaken
the said departmental examination and result of the said departmental
examination has not been declared. Attention of this Court is drawn to
respondent's Communication of 22nd September, 2017 (Annexure P-3 Colly)
wherein petitioner's request to declare Executive Exam Result has not been
acceded while pointing out that the result of the said examination has been
kept in sealed cover and has not been declared as the matter is sub judice
and that directions have to be sought from the High Court of Karnataka in
this respect. It is pointed out that an e-mail of 2nd November, 2017 was
received from respondent, whereby the candidates were called upon to
W.P.(C) No.1596/2018 Page 1
furnish an undertaking to the effect that if they are selected to the Executive
Post, then they may be reverted back to their previous position and salary
level if the recruitment in question is quashed. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that an undertaking to the aforesaid effect has already
been furnished by petitioner to respondent in November, 2017 and there is
no court order restraining respondent from declaring the result of the
selection in question and so the respondent be directed to declare the result
subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending in the High Court of
Karnataka.
3. Since petitioner has not made any effective Representation after
furnishing of the undertaking, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to permit
petitioner to file a concise Representation to respondent within a week and if
such a representation is received then the respondent shall pass a speaking
order thereon within four weeks and if deemed appropriate, obtain
appropriate orders from the High Court of Karnataka, if such a petition is
pending there. The fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner
within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may take recourse of law, if need
be.
4. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
mamta
W.P.(C) No.1596/2018 Page 2
