High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/2028/2019

Deepak Tomar v. Union Of India And ORS.

2019-02-27Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait2 pages

$~32 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr.Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan, Adv. with Mr.Rohni Gupta, Adv. for R-1.

Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Adv. with Ms.Swagata Bhuyan & Ms.Shiva Pandey, Advs. for R-2 & 3.

ASI Surender Rawat Ct. Vikas Kumar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

O R D E R

% 27.02.2019 Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Temporary Constable (Executive) Male and Constable (Dog Handler) Male in Delhi Police, 2013.

It is stated in the present petition that total 43 vacancies were advertised and the respondents have filled up only 41 and two vacancies are still left. The last candidate for unreserved category scored 95 marks whereas the petitioner has scored 90 marks. If two vacancies are filled, the petitioner has chances to get the post.

Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 appears on

advance notice and has informed this Court that out of total 43 vacancies, 42 have been filled up and the last candidate of the general category scored 95 marks whereas the petitioner has scored 90 marks, therefore, he could not be selected.

She further submits that only one vacancy is vacant, i.e. reserved for OBC (Ex-Serviceman). Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the above post.

Keeping in view of the fact that all the unreserved vacancies have been filled up and the last candidate has scored 95 marks whereas the petitioner has scored 90 marks, therefore, I find no merit in the present petition.

The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending applications are disposed of, accordingly. SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J FEBRUARY 27, 2019 ab