Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and anr

Manoj Kumar vs Union of India and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 05, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/954749

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/954749
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Pradeep Nandrajog
Decided On: Nov 05, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar

Respondent

Union of India and anr

Excerpt

.....of home affairs has not bothered to ensure that the government examiner of questioned documents sends an opinion on the reference made.3. on september 03, 2012 deciding w.p.(c) no.5454/2012 aman kumar vs. uoi & anr. wherein similar issue had been raised, we had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to ensure that the opinion sought from the government examiner of questioned documents at shimla is positively obtained within 3 weeks from that day and the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment if the opinion is in favour of the petitioner. if the opinion is against the petitioner, the process of law with respect to the petitioner being granted an opportunity of fair hearing before the final decision is taken be resorted to. in either case, the decision taken to be conveyed to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of the decision. the reason was that more than one and half year had elapsed since matter was referred for opinion to the government examiner of questioned documents.4. instant writ petition also stands disposed of directing the respondents to ensure that the opinion sought from the government examiner of questioned documents at shimla is positively obtained within 4 weeks from today and the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment if the opinion is in favour of the petitioner. if the opinion is against the petitioner, the process of law with respect to the petitioner being granted an opportunity of fair hearing before the final decision is taken be resorted to. in any case, the decision would be conveyed to the petitioner either way within 5 weeks from today.5. no costs. pradeep nandrajog, j.manmohan singh, j.november 05 2012 /dk/

Full Judgment

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 05, 2012 + W.P.(C) 6966/2012 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate and Ms.Gurjinder Kaur, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

(Oral) 1. Since the facts stated in the writ petition are not disputed, with consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed of today itself.

2. Employed as a Constable (GD) in CRPF the petitioner took the CPO Examination 2009 held by Staff Selection Commission for the post of Sub-Inspector. The results were declared on July 20, 2010. In spite of having qualified at the written examination as also the interview and notwithstanding petitioner having obtained marks above the cut-off point, he was surprised to note that his name was not included in the select list. The reason was (probably) a complaint received by the Staff Selection Commission that at the written examination, with respect to some candidates, which included the petitioner, there was impersonation. The petitioner was called upon in October, 2011 to give his specimen hand writing and signatures, which were forwarded, along with the answer sheet of the petitioner, to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla on or around November, 2011, for opinion, and till date, the Staff Selection Commission or the Ministry of Home Affairs has not bothered to ensure that the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents sends an opinion on the reference made.

3. On September 03, 2012 deciding W.P.(C) No.5454/2012 Aman Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. wherein similar issue had been raised, we had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to ensure that the opinion sought from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla is positively obtained within 3 weeks from that day and the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment if the opinion is in favour of the petitioner. If the opinion is against the petitioner, the process of law with respect to the petitioner being granted an opportunity of fair hearing before the final decision is taken be resorted to. In either case, the decision taken to be conveyed to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of the decision. The reason was that more than one and half year had elapsed since matter was referred for opinion to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents.

4. Instant writ petition also stands disposed of directing the respondents to ensure that the opinion sought from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla is positively obtained within 4 weeks from today and the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment if the opinion is in favour of the petitioner. If the opinion is against the petitioner, the process of law with respect to the petitioner being granted an opportunity of fair hearing before the final decision is taken be resorted to. In any case, the decision would be conveyed to the petitioner either way within 5 weeks from today.

5. No costs. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

NOVEMBER 05 2012 /dk/

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Manoj Kumar vs Union of India and anr Same Subject Education Same Judge Pradeep Nandrajog