NITIN KUMAR Vs. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner seeks appropriate directions against the respondents for his appointment as Sub -Inspector (SI) in the Central Armed Police Force.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner participated in a common recruitment process for selection to the post of SI in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces as well as Assistant Sub -Inspector in CISF. The examination was conducted in 2014. The controversy centres around the issue as to whether the petitioner possessed the essential qualification prescribed, i.e., graduation as on the cut off date spelt out in the advertisement. The common case of the parties is that a candidate is deemed qualified if he possessed a graduate degree from a recognized University as on 01.01.2014. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the written examination; he also cleared the other mandatory processes, i.e., Physical Endurance Test, Medical Test and Interview. Nevertheless his results were withheld. In these circumstances, he approached this Court seeking directions that are claimed as relief in the present petition, on 19.03.2015. Notice was issued to the respondents on 23.03.2015 and on 08.04.2015, the following order was made: -

(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit urge principally that the petitioner was not eligible since he did not possess the bachelor degree as on 01.01.2014. They cite the circumstance that the result of the B.Tech examination held by the Maharshi Dayanand University ("MDU"), where the petitioner had completed his engineering graduation degree had declared him failed as on 27.09.2013. The other objection - concededly a minor one - is a discrepancy in the petitioner's mother's name. The certificate initially issued by the University reflected that to be "Sprita" and the subsequent certificate furnished by the petitioner to the respondents indicates that the correct name is "Sarita". The petitioner relies upon the fact that the University declared him to have successfully completed the graduation in respect of the examination held in May, 2013. He relies upon the degree certificate issued in that regard. It is submitted that the petitioner had been wrongly marked in one paper of the sixth semester and had sought revaluation which was granted - the result of which was declared on 17.01.2014, i.e., "Micro -Controller and Embedded System, EE308 -F". The revaluation request ultimately resulted in enhancement of the marks awarded. Consequently, he was declared successful in the original examination and declared passed as on May, 2013. He, therefore, submits that the essential qualification of possessing the degree as on 01.01.2014 stood fulfilled.