Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India And ORS.
$~30 to 41.
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8318/2017, 9158/2017, 9160/2017, 9162/2017, 9171/2017, 9255/2017, 9256/2017, 9288/2017, 9360/2017, 9364/2017, 9425/2017 and 9427/2017 SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner JITENDRA YADAV ..... Petitioner HITESH KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner SUBHASH CHAND ..... Petitioner CHARAN SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner NAVEEN KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner MOHIT YADAV ..... Petitioner PARMENDAR KUMAR ..... Petitioner NITESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner RINKU ..... Petitioner AMIT YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv. in W.P.(C) No. 8318/2017 Mr. Pallav Kumar, Advocate in W.P.(C) Nos.
9158/2017, 9160/2017, W.P.(C) 8318/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 14 9162/2017, 9171/2017, 9255/2017, 9256/2017, 9288/2017, 9360/2017, 9364/2017, 9425/2017, 9427/2017.
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through: Mr.Prasant Varma, Sr. Central Govt.
Counsel for UOI with Ms.Shalu Goswami, Advocate in W.P.(C) 8318/2017.
Mr.Gigi C.George, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Tiwari, Adv. with Mr.B.S.Chauhan, Commandant, BSF for R-1 & R-2 in W.P.(C) Nos.9158/2017, 9160/2017, 9162/2017, 9171/2017, 9255/2017, 9256/2017, 9288/2017, 9360/2017, 9364/2017 and 9427/2017.
Mr.Vijay Joshi, Advocate for UOI in W.P.(C) No.9425/2017.
W.P.(C) 8318/2017 and connected matters
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 15.03.2018 1.
The present petitions have been listed on noticing two errors in the judgment dated 06.03.2018. The second sentence of para 9 is incomplete and is corrected to read as below:- "9. .... Knowing very well that if they were not permitted to participate in the second phase of the examination, the petitioners would have entirely missed the bus, as the clock could not have been set back for them where thousands of candidates were to participate in the examination, they ought to have acted with alacrity. ....." 2.
Further, the word 'who' is extraneous in para 17 of the judgment and ought to be deleted. Post deletion, para 17 shall read as below:- "17. Another consideration that has weighed with this court for declining the request of the petitioners is that not only had the entire process of the examination concluded by the time they had approached the court for relief, if any relief is granted to any of them at this belated stage, it would have a cascading effect as other similarly placed candidates shall start knocking at the doors of the court asking for similar relief, which is impermissible." 3.
This order shall be read as a part and parcel of the common judgment dated 06.03.2018.
HIMA KOHLI, J PRATIBHA RANI, J MARCH 15, 2018 rkb W.P.(C) 8318/2017 and connected matters