← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/10924/2018

Santosh Kumar v. Union Of India And ANR.

2018-10-29Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait2 pages

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10924/2018 SANTOSH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through :

Ms.Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

O R D E R

% 29.10.2018 Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the respondent No.1 to consider the application made by him in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.11.2014 for the post of member of elimination of child labour or child in distress in National Commission for Protection of Women Rights (NCPCR). He further seeks direction to quash the order dated 28.07.2016 whereby the petitioner was informed that his application for the post of member was not considered as he had not given the details of his experience as required in the application form. Pursuant to the order dated 12.10.2018 the learned counsel for the respondent has produced the original application of the petitioner and has pointed out that in Column No.10 of the same, the petitioner has not filled up his experience acquired with whom and which period to which period.

Initially the petitioner has filed the petition before the Tribunal vide OA No.1986/2016. The same was disposed of by an order dated 02.06.2016 directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, by order dated 28.07.2016, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed by stating that it is found that he had not given the details of his experience as required in the application performa and hence his application was incomplete and consequently, his name could not be considered for the post in question.

On perusal of the application specially Column No.10, the petitioner has not stated as to with which organization he has worked and from which period to which period. Thus, he failed to fill up the column No.10 regarding the experience he earned. Moreover, the post in question is pursuant to advertisement dated 04.11.2014 and the same has been filled up.

In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the order dated 20.07.2016.

Having no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

OCTOBER 29, 2018/sa