Sonu Kumar v. Secretary,Staff Selection Commiccion

ORDER?? % 09.10.2012 I By way of this petition, the petitioner assails the failure of the1. respondent to appoint him as a Constable (G.D.) in the Central Police Organisations on account of erroneous consideration of his state. The petitioner was an OBC candidate who hailed from the state of Bihar. The respondent erroneously treated the petitioner as if he was from the wrong result and therefore an erroneousstate of Haryana, resulting in denial of appointment. No counter affidavit has been filed. However, a copy of the letter2. 8th dated October, 2012 under signatures of Nityananda Ray, Under? Secretary (Legal) of the Staff Selection Board has been placed before us wherein it is stated as thus:- Page No.1 of 3WP (C) No.338412012? "1 am directed to refer to the captioned subject and say that the petitioner's result has been revised and he has been considered for nomination to one of the Central Police Organizatoins on the basis of his merit by the Commission. The process of nomination is under way and it is likely to be completed within a week. Once the process of nomination is completed a copy of the same will be sent to you for appraisal of the Hon'ble Court. In the meanwhile you may inform the court of the present developments in the matter. This issues with the approval of RD (NR)."

¶3It, therefore, appears that the petitioner's result has been revised and he has been considered for nomination to one of the Central Police? P Organisations on the basis of his merit by the Commission and that the process of nomination is underway and is likely to be completed within a week.

¶4In view of the above, it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition stands satisfied and nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition which is allowed in terms of the 8th information furnished in the communication dated October, 2012.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed an apprehension that the necessary orders may not be passed by the respondents with P_ expedition.

¶6In view of the above, a direction is issued to the respondent to ensure that the petitioner is communicated the result of consideration WP (C) No.338412012? Page No.2 of 3 I Ih October, 2012 within aof his candidature in terms of the letter dated 8 period of two weeks from today. 91h List for reporting compliance on November, 2012. GFØ% MITFAI-J G.P.MITFAL, J OCTOBER 09, 2012 aa r -L ? Page No.3 of WP (C) No338412012 $-? * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 23? W.P.(C) N0.3384/2012+ ? .....PetitionerSONU KUMAR Mr.Saroj KumarJha, Adv.Through? Versus SECRETARY,STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION .....Respondent Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Adv.Through? CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 'I HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA I ORDER

20.11.2012%?

¶1In terms of the submissions made on previous dates, Mr. Ankur Chhiber, learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us a 1h November, 2012 addressed by the Staff Selectionletter dated 19 Commission intimating that the result of Sonu Kumar, the present petitioner, stood revised and the petitioner has been nominated vide a October, 2012. A copy11 nomination letter No.2/1/2011-ND.II dated 9 vi of the letter dated 9th October, 2012 sent by the Staff Selection Commission to Shri M.C. Panwar, DIG (Rectt.) of the Central Reserve t Police Force (CRPF) intimating that the petitioner has been considered for nomination in the CRPF on the basis of merit, has been produced. Page No.1 of 3WP (C) No.338412012? ^r Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has till date not received any communication with regard to his appointment from the CRPF. In the instant case, the petitioner has been deprived of2. appointment for the fault of the respondent firstly the Staff Selection Commission in wrongly scrutinizing the result of the petitioner. Thereafter, despite the nomination of the petitioner to the CRPF by the Staff Selection Commission, the CRPF is dragging its feet and has taken no action in the matter of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record repeated representations3. despite which he was compelled to come to the court. In this background, we grant last opportunity to the respondent to ensure that complete justice is done to the petitioner. Needless to say in the above circumstances, the petitioner will be4. entitled to maintenance of his merit position in the appointment list and will be entitled to grant of notional seniority so far as the batch in which he took the examination is concerned. Appropriate orders with regard to the above shall be positively communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. This writ petition need not be listed any further.5. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach the court in case the Page No.2 of 3WP (C) No.338412012? respondent fails to comply with the above mentioned directions. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of the proceedings which6.? are quantified at Rs.20,000I-. MflA1, GLIA J SIJ.R.MTbHA,J I�NOVEMBER 20, 2012? aa( Page No.3 of 3?WP (C) No.338412012

$-.-? * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 11? + W.P.(C) No.3384/2012 SONU KUMAR? . Petitioner Through?Mr.Saroj KumarJha, Adv. Versus SECRETARY,STAFF SELECTION COMMICCION?Respondent Through?Mr. Ankur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL, J