Ritika vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

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.