- (1.) The petitioner was a candidate for the selection in Para Military Force in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.3.2015 whereby applications were invited for the appointment on the post of Para Military Force.
(2.) It is stated that the petitioner has secured marks which is above the cut-off marks but he has not been considered for appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WRit Petition No. (C) No. 8004 of 2014 (Navrattan Singh and others Vs. Union of India and another). The said order has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.32230 of 2015 (Amit Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and another). The said order reads as under:- "The petitioner was a candidate for the appointment on the post of Constable in Para Military Force. The respondent had issued an advertisement on 05.06.2011. The petitioner submitted his application in response to the said advertisement and he claims that he passed the physical examination test, written examination test and also attended the interview. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has secured 41% marks, however, other candidates who have secured lesser marks have been selected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and Sri Gyan Prakash, who put his appearance on behalf of the Union of India submits that a large number of candidates submitted incomplete application, as they have not given preference. The candidates, who have not submitted preference have been placed under the reserved list. The said action was challenged in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 8004 of 2014, Navrattan Singh and others Vs. Union of India & another. Revised result was declared on 04.02.2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has secured higher marks than the selected candidates but without any justifiable reason his name does not include in the select list and he has put in the reserved list. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission only to the prayer that the respondents may consider his representation in response to the advertisement / public notice issued by the respondents dated 05.03.2015 calling the objections from the candidates. A copy of the said advertisement / public notice is on record along with representation made by the petitioner dated 12.03.2015 as Annexure No. SA-1 to the affidavit. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the representation is within time and as such the respondents may consider it. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously."
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents has not denied the said fact.;