Ritika vs Staff Selection Commission & Others

R.N. Singh, Member (J)

Through Video Conferencing

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against the impugned rejection order of the applicant for not fulfiling the requisite height, the applicant

has preferred an appeal. However, the respondents have not responded to such appeal.

Per contra, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions submits that against such impugned order, the applicant has

preferred his appeal on the same day and the same was considered by the Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was rejected and the applicant

as a mark of acknowledgement has signed such appellate decision. However, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that a copy of the same

was not supplied to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant has not challenged the said appellate decision of the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to supply a copy of such appellate decision to the

applicant positively within a week from today, who in turn may avail legal remedies, if any, in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid undertaking of learned counsel for the respondents, the OA is disposed of, as not pressed by the learned counsel for the

applicant, with liberty to the applicant in accordance with law. Pending MA also stands disposed of. No costs.