CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 11 CAT CK 0026

Jyoti vs Union Of India And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 18 November 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 1475 Of 2019, Miscellaneous Application No. 1709 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 348 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notification in April, 2017, inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police. The applicant responded to the same. The procedure involved conducting of written examination and verification of the physical fitness. The results were published on 30.10.2018 and the name of the applicant figured in the list of successful candidates at SI. No. 305.

2.

When the issuance of offer of appointment was delayed, the applicant approached the respondents. She was informed in May, 2019 that her dossier has not been forwarded to the User Department, i.e. Delhi Police in view of the pendency of forensic verification of her writing and signature in the answersheets.

3.

This OA is filed, challenging the inaction of the respondents. The applicant contends that while all other candidates, who were selected, were issued order of appointment, it is being denied in her case.

4.

We heard Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. KM Singh, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

5.

The record discloses that the applicant was selected and her name was included in the list of successful candidates. From the reply given to the applicant, it is evident that the issuance of offer of appointment to the applicant is delayed, pending verification of the alleged mismatch of signature writing in the answersheets. Even if that is true, the respondents cannot delay the matter indefinitely. The applicant does have a genuine grievance on account of undue delay.

6.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA, directing the respondents to take further steps in pursuance of the selection of the applicant within a period of six weeks from today. We make it clear that if the verification through forensic laboratory is not completed within that time, the feasibility of issuance of offer of appointment, subject to the outcome of analysis by forensic laboratory shall be considered.

Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.