Rajdeep Kumar vs.energy Efficiency Service Ltd and Anr.

Rajdeep Kumar vs Energy Efficiency Service Ltd and Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 16, 2018

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1212841

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1212841
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Feb 16, 2018
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajdeep Kumar

Respondent

Energy Efficiency Service Ltd and Anr.

Excerpt

.....16, 2018 w.p.(c) 1501/2018 & cm nos.6146-47/2018 rajdeep kumar ........ petitioner through: mr.parijat kishore, advocate versus ........ respondents energy efficiency service ltd and anr. through: nemo coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur1 order (oral)... petitioner claims that in response to advertisement of 30th august, 2017 (annexure p-1), he had applied for the post of deputy manager (technical) and had participated in the written examination for short listing of candidates for group discussion and as per the rti information of 1st january, 2018, he had scored 40.40 marks in the written examination, whereas the lowest qualifying marks were 55.... petitioner claims to have applied for rechecking of answer sheet which according to petitioner was granted but the certified copy of the answer sheet was not provided to petitioner due to confidentiality claimed by first respondent. however, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on rechecking of his answer sheets, it was found that he has actually scored 50.60 marks and since petitioner belongs to obc category, therefore he was eligible for being w.p.(c) no.1501/2018 page 1 called for the group discussion which took place in january, 2018. it is submitted by petitioner’s counsel that there is overlapping in the list of candidates in the general category as well as in the obc category, due to which petitioner has been excluded. it is asserted that petitioner is eligible upon scoring of 50.60 marks. it is pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that the lowest qualifying marks for the obc category for the post in question is 52.25 marks. upon a query put to petitioner’s counsel, it is disclosed that the interviews for the post in question have already taken place in january, 2018 itself, but the results are awaited. the prayer made in this petition is for quashing of the written examination conducted for the post in question and a mandamus is sought to respondent to include petitioner’s name in the.....

Full Judgment

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order : February 16, 2018 W.P.(C) 1501/2018 & CM Nos.6146-47/2018 RAJDEEP KUMAR ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr.Parijat Kishore, Advocate versus ........ RESPONDENTS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICE LTD AND ANR. Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR1 ORDER

(ORAL)... Petitioner

claims that in response to Advertisement of 30th August, 2017 (Annexure P-1), he had applied for the post of Deputy Manager (Technical) and had participated in the written examination for short listing of candidates for group discussion and as per the RTI information of 1st January, 2018, he had scored 40.40 marks in the written examination, whereas the lowest qualifying marks were 55.... Petitioner

claims to have applied for rechecking of answer sheet which according to petitioner was granted but the certified copy of the answer sheet was not provided to petitioner due to confidentiality claimed by first respondent. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on rechecking of his answer sheets, it was found that he has actually scored 50.60 marks and since petitioner belongs to OBC category, therefore he was eligible for being W.P.(C) No.1501/2018 Page 1 called for the group discussion which took place in January, 2018. It is submitted by petitioner’s counsel that there is overlapping in the list of candidates in the General Category as well as in the OBC category, due to which petitioner has been excluded. It is asserted that petitioner is eligible upon scoring of 50.60 marks. It is pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that the lowest qualifying marks for the OBC category for the post in question is 52.25 marks. Upon a query put to petitioner’s counsel, it is disclosed that the interviews for the post in question have already taken place in January, 2018 itself, but the results are awaited. The prayer made in this petition is for quashing of the written examination conducted for the post in question and a mandamus is sought to respondent to include petitioner’s name in the list of shortlisted candidates for group discussion.

2. In the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is premature.... Petitioner

would have right to challenge the impugned selection after the results are declared.

3. With aforesaid observations, this petition and the applications are disposed of as premature. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY16 2018 mamta W.P.(C) No.1501/2018 Page 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Rajdeep Kumar vs Energy Efficiency Service Ltd and Anr. Same Subject Right to Information