Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 633 (HP)

Avtar Singh v. Union Of India

2018-04-12

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —In this writ petition, following relief has been sought to be granted: "(i) Respondents may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of tests conducted by respondent No. 2 on 6.9.2011 at Dharamshala after awarding NCC-A certificate marks to the petitioner and thereafter send the petitioner for training for Sailor for Sr. Secondary Recruit." 2. The respondent No. 2 had to fill-up few vacancies of Sailor for Senior Secondary Recruits in its 2011 batch. The petitioner, who was eligible, made an application for his enrollment as such consequent upon the advertisement issued in the month of July/August 2011. He was called for written examination. He appeared in such examination on 6.9.2011 from Dharamshala centre. The result was declared and displayed on the website of the second respondent on 30.12.2011. He had qualified the written examination and was required to appear in physical test. He qualified for the said test also. It is thereafter he even cleared the medical fitness test also and was called upon to furnish the documents in original including NCC-A certificate. The same were to be returned after verification. The petitioner claims that the NCC-A certificate Annexure P-1 (colly) was produced by him before the Selection Committee. When not selected, he obtained information under the Right to Information Act and came to know that on account of non-production of NCC-A certificate the marks prescribed for such certificate were not awarded to him and that he being not in merit has not been selected. 3. In reply the respondent-Union of India has admitted the entire case of the petitioner as set out in the petition except for furnishing NCC-A certificate by him. In this regard, it is stated that the petitioner never supplied the said certificate and as a result thereof the benefit of such certificate could not be extended in his favour. 4. I have heard Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Rubeena Bhatt, Advocate and Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel. While the petitioner claims that he has submitted the NCC-A certificate to the Selection Committee at an appropriate stage, the stand of the respondent is that he never supplied any such certificate and it is for this reason the marks prescribed for such certificate could not be given to him. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel. While the petitioner claims that he has submitted the NCC-A certificate to the Selection Committee at an appropriate stage, the stand of the respondent is that he never supplied any such certificate and it is for this reason the marks prescribed for such certificate could not be given to him. The stand of the respondents seem to be reasonable and plausible for the reasons that the Selection Committee has considered such certificate issued by nine other candidates appeared from Dharamshala centre. Had the certificate been produced before the Selection Committee by the petitioner also the benefit thereof would have also given to him. Otherwise also, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the Selection Committee was inimical to the petitioner and it is for this reason not counted for such certificate while drawing merit of the petitioner. Above all, the selection process has taken place long back in the year 2011. The selection also stand made, therefore, at this stage when the petitioner may by now be over age issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the NCC-A certificate at this stage and give benefit thereof to him would be nothing but merely a futile exercise. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand dismissed.