Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Mazhar Raja vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 March, 2018
$~12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6399/2017
CT/GD MAZHAR RAJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ujjwal Pandey, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocate for
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC alongwith Mr. Vivek
Kumar Singh, DC (Law), CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
% 19.03.2018
1. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents/CRPF to consider
his case for appointment to the post of SI/GD through Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination, 2014 (in short, „LDCE‟) with all consequential
benefits.
2. A brief glance at the facts of the case is considered necessary. On
01.05.2004, the petitioner was inducted in the CRPF as Constable/GD in the
General category. In June, 2010, the respondents issued SO No.01/2010,
proposing to conduct LDCE for appointment to the post of SI/GD in the
CRPF. In October, 2011, the aforesaid SO was amended vide Addendum
dated 11.10.2011, indicating some changes in the procedure of conducting
the LDCE and vide Signal dated 02.12.2011, it was directed that there shall
be no separate reservation of vacancies for the OBC candidates for
appointment to the subject post through LDCE. The petitioner submitted his
application through proper channel for participating in the LDCE. He
qualified in the written examination as also in the subsequent stages of the
selection process, i.e., physical standard test, physical efficiency test,
checking of testimonial service records and medical examination. When the
results of the LDCE were declared, the petitioner did not find his name in
the list of selected candidates. Instead of taking immediate steps to seek
legal recourse, the petitioner kept on submitting one representation after the
other to the respondents and finally, approached this Court by filing the
present petition in July, 2017.
3. A counter affidavit in opposition to the present petition has been filed
by the respondents, who have stated that vide Notification dated 23.07.2014,
the Director General, CRPF had invited applications for selection to the post
of SI/GD through LDCE, 2014. The number of vacancies that were
advertised were as below:-
"MALE: i) Gen/OBC Candidate = 98 ii) SC candidate = 19 iii) ST
candidate = 10 TOTAL = 127
FEMALE: i) Gen/OBC Candidate = 07 ii) SC candidate = 01 iii) ST
candidate = 01 TOTAL = 09"
4. The petitioner had applied for the aforesaid post and had qualified
various phases of the examination. On the results of the written examination
being declared, it transpired that the petitioner had secured 128 marks, the
breakup whereof is as below:-
"Part-I - 36
Part-II - 26
Part-III - 28
Part-IV - 38
Total 128"
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the
petitioner had qualified in all the stages of the examination, since the last
selected candidate to the post of SI/GD had secured 139 marks, the
petitioner could not be selected to the subject post, having secured only 128
marks. It is for the said reason that the petitioner was not declared as a
successful candidate by the respondents. Learned counsel additionally
submits that a preliminary objection has been taken in the counter affidavit
with respect to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that
the petitioner has approached the Court for relief after a gap of almost three
years reckoned from the date the examinations were conducted without any
just and sufficient cause offered by him for the said delay.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the aforesaid arguments by
stating that the petitioner had constantly been corresponding with the
respondents to know the reasons for exclusion of his name from the list of
successful candidates in the LDCE and the last representation addressed by
him to the respondents was on 10.08.2016, but he did not get any reply.
7. It is apparent from the facts narrated above that the first date when the
cause of action had arisen in favour of the petitioner to approach the Court
for relief was when the answer key of the written test dated 28.09.2014 of
the LDCE, 2014 was uploaded on the CRPF‟s website and the candidates,
whose names were found placed in the final merit list, were duly informed
of their status to enable them to complete post selection formalities and the
petitioner found that his name was not mentioned in the said list. Assuming
that the petitioner was corresponding with the respondents all along to know
his position in the examination, at best, he could have waited for a period of
six months to one year. However, the petitioner did not take any steps for
all of three years to approach the Court for relief, which cannot be treated as
a reasonable period in the given facts of the case.
8. Even on merits, having regard to the averments made by the
respondents in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been clearly stated that
though the petitioner had qualified in the written examination and all the
subsequent stages right upto his medical examination, he could not find any
place in the final merit list of LDCE, having secured 128 marks in the
written examination, whereas the last selected candidate had secured 139
marks, this case does not deserve any interference.
9. In view the aforesaid facts, we do not find any justification for
granting any relief to the petitioner. The present petition is accordingly
dismissed as devoid of merits, with no orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
MARCH 19, 2018
rkb/ap
