Kuldeep v. The Directorate General, Crpf

$~18 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ KULDEEP .... Petitioner Through:

Mr. P. S. Bindra, Advocate versus THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CRPF ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Ripu Dhaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 16.02.2016 CM APPLN.15359/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent-CRPF to appoint him as a Constable (GD), pursuant to the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.

2.

Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the year 2013, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the Recruitment Notice issued by the respondent and he had cleared the written examination on 10th January, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared in the Medical Examination

and had cleared the same. When the list of successful candidates was published by the respondent, it transpired that petitioner had secured 2941 rank and was shown as appointed in the CRPF. However, the petitioner did not receive any intimation from the respondent for several months and finally, was compelled to file the present petition.

3.

Notice was issued on the present petition on 17th August, 2015, returnable for 12th October, 2015. The respondent was directed to file a counter affidavit, which has still not been filed. 4.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he had filed an affidavit on 5th February, 2016, with a copy to the other side. He hands over a copy of the affidavit that states that the Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad, U.P., had vide letter dated 10th November, 2014, forwarded the petitioner's dossiers along with other dossiers of suspected cases of impersonation for appointment to the Group Centre at Allahabad with the remarks that during the general scrutiny of the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) and the signatures of these candidates, there appeared some discrepancies, which were required to be verified. In the light of the said opinion, the respondent had forwarded the dossier of the petitioner and the other 975 candidates to the CFSL, Hyderabad on

10th September, 2015 for further examination and a report. 5.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the report from the CFSL, Hyderabad is still awaited and as soon as the report is received, the respondent shall process the case of the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates, in accordance with law. 6.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to pursue the matter with the CFSL and on obtaining a report, decide the fate of the petitioner. 7.

CFSL, Hyderabad is directed to expedite its report and forward the same to the respondent preferably within three months from today so that it can take a decision with regard to the candidature of the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates at the earliest, in accordance with law.

HIMA KOHLI, J SUNIL GAUR, J FEBRUARY 16, 2016 s