Full Judgment
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order : February 20, 2018 W.P.(C) 1596/2018 & CM No.6547/2018 Through: Mr.Amitesh Gaurav, Advocate ........ Petitioner
LESLIE K. DAVID CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR versus CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Brajesh Kumar, Advocate for UOI ORDER
(ORAL) 1. Declaration of result of departmental examination conducted by respondent in terms of circular/Advertisement of 29th September, 2016 subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No.21682/2016 pending before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is sought in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had undertaken the said departmental examination and result of the said departmental examination has not been declared. Attention of this Court is drawn to respondent’s Communication of 22nd September, 2017 (Annexure P-3 Colly) wherein petitioner’s request to declare Executive Exam Result has not been acceded while pointing out that the result of the said examination has been kept in sealed cover and has not been declared as the matter is sub judice and that directions have to be sought from the High Court of Karnataka in this respect. It is pointed out that an e-mail of 2nd November, 2017 was received from respondent, whereby the candidates were called upon to W.P.(C) No.1596/2018 Page 1 furnish an undertaking to the effect that if they are selected to the Executive Post, then they may be reverted back to their previous position and salary level if the recruitment in question is quashed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an undertaking to the aforesaid effect has already been furnished by petitioner to respondent in November, 2017 and there is no court order restraining respondent from declaring the result of the selection in question and so the respondent be directed to declare the result subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending in the High Court of Karnataka.
3. Since petitioner has not made any effective Representation after furnishing of the undertaking, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to file a concise Representation to respondent within a week and if such a representation is received then the respondent shall pass a speaking order thereon within four weeks and if deemed appropriate, obtain appropriate orders from the High Court of Karnataka, if such a petition is pending there. The fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may take recourse of law, if need be.
4. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of. Dasti. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY20 2018 mamta W.P.(C) No.1596/2018 Page 2