SUBHASMITA KAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
Biswanath Rath, J. -
(1.) This writ petition involves quashing of memorandum dated 07.11.2014 of the opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-8 and issuing further direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner in terms of the selection made vide Annexure-7 pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3.
(2.) Short background involving the case is that following the advertisement under Annexure-3 through employment news, petitioner became a candidate for recruitment for the post of constable in the CAPFs. As a consequence of production of relevant documents through appropriate application, ultimately vide Annexure-7 the opposite parties prepared a chart involving Recruitment of Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, 2013 including the list of female candidates recommended for appointment in Roll Number order. Sri Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the document at Annexure-7, at column "Record" Sl.No.1822, Roll No. 4604501849 contended that petitioner name already finds place therein in the list of Female Candidates recommended. It is thus referring to the document at Annexure-8, a submission is made by Sri Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner that for the name of the petitioner already recommended, there was no question in issuing such memorandum. Further for the clear statement involving writ petition, Sri Lenka, learned counsel also submitted that for there being already submission of a domicile certificate by the petitioner as a candidate in the recruitment process, there is no occasion on the part of the opposite parties to issue such memorandum thereby cancelling the recommendation in favour of the petitioner. It is for the above, Sri Lenka learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petition should succeed with interference of this Court in the memorandum at Annexure-8 and prayed that a direction should also be issued to the appointing authority to forthwith appointing the petitioner.
(3.) To the contrary, Sri Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite parties taking plea of the opposite parties, more particularly, referring to the document at Annexure-R-2 appearing at running page 33 of the brief taking this Court to the mentioning therein contended that at the column "Domicile Certificate", there is clear observation therein marking that "not produced" and the comment since bears signature of the petitioner herself Sri Pradhan, learned counsel contended that petitioner knowing that she did not produce the domicile certificate and after knowing such deficiency only, she put her signature in the format vide Annexure-R-2. It is in this view of the matter, learned counsel opposed the submission as well as the claim of the petitioner and thus requests this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.