Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3497 Del

Delhi High Court

Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 May, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                  $~26
                  *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +       W.P.(C) 3786/2024
                          SANJAY KUMAR YADAV                                      .....Petitioner
                                      Through:                   Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.

                                                      versus

                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                 .....Respondents
                                        Through: Ms. Sarika Singh, Sr. PC with
                                        Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv. for UOI with
                                        Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer, Mr. Athurv,
                                        Insp. and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, (CRPF)

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                                      ORDER (ORAL)

                  %                                    27.05.2025

                  C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the review petition.

2. We do not find that the submissions urged by Mr. Bhardwaj make out a case for review of our judgment dated 1 May 2025.

3. The submissions urged by Mr. Bhardwaj are either being urged for the first time or have been urged and already considered.

4. Mr. Bhardwaj seeks to point out that at the relevant point in the

advertisement where there was the candidate was required to enter the details of his experience, there is no space to do so. He also submits that any prudent man would interpret the advertisement, particularly in the light of Clause 10 (2) thereof, as requiring the documents relating to the experience only to be produced at the stage of screening.

5. We have already held in our judgment that there was a specific requirement of the candidate entering the experience and educational qualifications in the form and that the petitioner had not done so. Neither had he produced the documents relating to the qualifications with his application. In fact, the certificate in question was obtained even after the cut-off date which was provided in the application.

6. These are the considerations on which we have decided to ultimately hold against the petitioner.

7. It is well settled that the review petition cannot be a basis to reargue the contentions already urged during hearing of the writ petition and considered.

8. Mr. Bhardwaj also sought to submit that another candidate Dhola Ram, who also submitted a certificate late, was considered.

9. We have seen our notes and we do not find any reference to Dhola Ram in the notes. In any case, the fact that the candidature of another candidate may have been considered cannot be a ground for the petitioner, who does not furnish the requisite information with the application, to seek consideration of his case.

10. The contentions advanced by Mr. Bhardwaj today amounts to an attempt to reargue the writ petition and convince us of the merits of his client's case.

11. That cannot be done in a review petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

MAY 27, 2025/aky Click here to check corrigendum, if any