Shivansh Angira v. Union Of India And ANR.

$~2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7102/2018 SHIVANSH ANGIRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Shukla and Ms. Nupur Shukla, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Piyush Gaur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 30.07.2018 1.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has obtained instructions from the Department to the effect that the information sought by the petitioner through his Advocate by virtue of a letter dated 14.9.2017, was duly furnished to the counsel through speed post on 31.10.2017. He hands over a copy of the information furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner and particularly refers to para 3(c) thereof, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was considered for the final merits list for the courses commencing in July, 2016 but he could not meet the cut off for the Branches of his choice and therefore, did not make it into the final merit list. 2.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that apart from displaying the list of successful candidates on the website of the Indian Air Force, each candidate, who had appeared in the Indian Air Force Common Admission Test -2015, was conveyed his result through e-mail and therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that he was never informed of the W.P.(C) 7102/2018

results. He further states that 107 candidates were selected in the Indian Air Force Common Admission Test-2015, results thereof were displayed in June, 2016 and the petitioner's name had featured at Sr. No. 190, as he had scored 533 marks, whereas as per the merit list, the cut off marks were 593 and no candidate, who had scored marks below the petitioner, has been appointed.

3.

Having regard to the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for relief and that too in respect of the Indian Air Force Common Admission Test conducted in the year 2015, results whereof declared in June, 2016, and further taking into consideration the fact that all the posts have already been filled up and the course for commissioning the officers was concluded in June, whereafter they have been commissioned, we see no justification for entertaining the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed, as being hit by delay and laches. HIMA KOHLI, J REKHA PALLI, J JULY 30, 2018 ap/rkb W.P.(C) 7102/2018