Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 28 April, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (C) NO.12986/2009

Date of decision: 28th April, 2011

SUNIL KUMAR ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Singhal, Advocate.

Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam Gupta with

Mr. Aditya, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ANIL KUMAR, J.(Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.12940/2009, titled as Jitender Singh Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others, dated 15th October, 2010. This writ petition was filed by Mr. Jitender Singh who had successfully cleared the WP(C) No12986/2009 Page 1 of 4 examination process for being recruited as a Constable in the Delhi Police but was denied appointment on account of his being accused in some FIRs, although he was acquitted in all of them.

2. Notwithstanding the acquittal, the department had not issued the letter of appointment entailing challenging his non- appointment by Jitender Singh in O.A. No. 2543/06 filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed. Against dismissal of his petition, the Writ Petition (C) No.12940/2009 was filed which was allowed by another Bench of this Court holding that no specific findings had been rendered pertaining to Jitender Singh and under the circumstances, the order in the case of Jitender Singh in his O.A. No. 2543/06 dated 24th April, 2008 was set aside and the OA No. 2543/2006 was restored for afresh adjudication on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the present petitioner Sunil Kumar is exactly the same. The petitioner Sunil Kumar was also involved in a FIR, though he was acquitted but even after successfully completing the selection process for recruitment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police, he was not appointed to the said post entailing challenging the action of the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, had dismissed the original application of the petitioner being O.A. No. 2579/2006 titled Sunil Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of WP(C) No12986/2009 Page 2 of 4 Delhi and Others. While dismissing his petition, no specific findings had been rendered in case of the petitioner except listing his name in the chart, which was prepared for various candidates by the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions does not oppose the pleas and contentions raised by the petitioner that no findings were rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal except listing the name of the petitioner on the chart, which was prepared by the Tribunal.

5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008 dismissing O.A. No.2579/2006 titled as Sunil Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits and O.A. No.2579/2006 is revived.

6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

7. Since the parties are represented before us, we direct that the parties shall appear through their counsel before the Registrar of the Tribunal on 13th May, 2011. Parties shall also file a formal application along with a copy of the order passed by this Court today so that the file could be traced by the Registry on 13th May, 2011.

WP(C) No12986/2009 Page 3 of 4

8. The writ petition is thus disposed of in these terms.

9. Dasti.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

APRIL 28, 2011

j

WP(C) No12986/2009 Page 4 of 4