LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-175

ATUL DHARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 06, 2022
Atul Dhariya Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to allow him to join at INS Chilka and consider him in further enrolment/recruitment process.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for the post of Navik (GD) in the Indian Coast Guard (in short, "ICG") for the 02/2021 batch. The petitioner cleared the Stage - I recruitment process successfully. The petitioner was thereafter called for the Physical Fitness Test, which also he successfully completed. However, on examination of his documents, the Recruitment Board declared him as not qualified and failed him on account of some issue with his Caste Certificate. The petitioner states that thereafter he checked his application status online on the portal and the same showed "Invalid Credentials".

(3.) The petitioner claims that in the month of August 2021, his phone was damaged and he did not have money to get it repaired as he belongs to a humble background. For this reason, he was not able to check his result, which was declared and uploaded by the respondents on the website on 12/8/2021. The petitioner further claims that on 14/8/2021 he received an e-mail from the Recruitment Directorate that his case has been re-examined and his documents have been found to be in order and that he has cleared the Stage - II recruitment process. The petitioner claims that as he was unaware of his clearing of the Stage - II recruitment process, he could not report at INS Chilka for the Stage - III recruitment process on 27/8/2021, as directed. The petitioner states that he was unable to report for the Stage - III recruitment process due to negligence and communication gap from the respondents" end as no intimation was given to the petitioner through a text message or through a postal communication of his clearing the Stage - II recruitment process. Such intimation was given only through e-mail, which the petitioner was unable to check because he was using the basic-feature phone and surviving on limited resources.