Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Soldier (GD), a Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., could not grant any relief to the petitioner since the recruitment process was based on priorities, but said that the Union is expected to be more careful while giving reasons for which the candidates have not been appointed at a particular post.
Background
Pursuant to the notification dated 28-10-2017, a recruitment rally was held in Bhopal in January 2018. The petitioner reported at the venue and undertook the entire selection process. However, by a cryptic correspondence dated 07-02-2018, he was informed that he had not been selected as he had failed the written examination, and his name was not mentioned in the merit list of the available vacancies for his State.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed an application under the . The reply received therein stated that the petitioner scored 100 out of 100 marks in the physical fitness test, 66 marks out of 100 in the written test, and was awarded a bonus of 20 marks for being the son of an ex-serviceman. The reply further confirmed that the cut-off mark was 176 out of 200, which the petitioner had surpassed. In another reply to the application, it was stated that the rally was conducted for All India All Caste (‘AIAC’) Vacancies, where candidates from any region in India could participate and that there was no fixed vacancy allocated to any particular State.
The Union contended that the recruitment rally was primarily intended for the sons of war widows/ widows/ ex-servicemen/ servicemen and own brothers of service/ex-servicemen, with priority given to those who belong to the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (‘EME’) Centre. It was also stated that the selection was based firstly on the priority and secondly on the total marks scored. Therefore, simply because the petitioner scored the requisite cut-off marks, the petitioner could not be offered an appointment, as he belonged to ‘Priority V’, being a son of an ex-serviceman who did not belong to the EME but to the Regiments of Guards.
Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioner was not informed of the correct reasons for not being appointed as a Soldier (GD) in the recruitment rally and that this litigation could have been avoided had the petitioner been informed of the same.
Upon consideration of the Union’s contentions and the recruitment notification, the Court held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
While disposing of the petition, the Court said that in future, the Union is expected to be more careful in responding to the candidates while informing them of the reasons for which they have not been appointed so as to avoid such litigation which entails cost and time consumption for the candidates who may not be able to afford it and have to make arrangements for the litigation from their meagre resources.
[Sandeep Kumar Singh v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 10619 of 2018, decided on 27-11-2024]
*Order authored by Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Advocate Ajit Kakkar
For the respondent: SPC Jivesh Tiwari, Major Anish Muralidhar, Army
The post appeared first on .