Delhi High Court
Sushil Thakran vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 3 November, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5901/2014 & CM 14475/2014
Date of decision: 03.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUSHIL THAKRAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate
versus
THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma and
Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocates
for R-1 & R-2 with Mr.N.N.Mathur, RM
RO-1
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission, in view of the limited relief sought by the petitioner.
2. Before dealing with the case, it may be noted that on the last date of hearing, in view of the stand taken by the counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 that he had not received any instructions from the Department and was therefore, unable to render any assistance, the court was compelled to call upon the Regional Manager of the respondents No.1 & 2 W.P.(C) 5901/2014 Page 1 of 5 to remain present on the next date of hearing, with an explanation for failing to furnish adequate instructions to its counsel.
3. Mr. N.N. Mathur, Regional Manager of the respondents No.1 & 2 is present in court and explains that though Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa, is the nominated counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 and she had accepted a copy of the paper book and forwarded it to the Department, there was delay at the end of the Department in assigning the brief to the counsel. He assures the court that in future, the Department shall take steps to ensure that necessary instructions are furnished to the counsel who appears at the stage of admission.
4. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 & 2/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the respondent No.3/National Insurance Co.Ltd. to appoint him to the post of Assistant Grade-III with all the consequential benefits, including seniority and promotion etc.
5. As per the averments made in the writ petition, in the year 2013, the respondent No.3 had issued an advertisement for recruitment of 2600 Assistants in Case III Cadre from open market for public sector General Insurance Companies including the respondents No.1 & 2. The selection process comprised of two parts; in the first stage, the candidates were to sit for the written test and after clearing the said test, those candidates W.P.(C) 5901/2014 Page 2 of 5 who would be shortlisted, were to be called for an interview, followed by a Computer Proficiency Test. The petitioner claims that he fulfilled the educational qualifications for the subject post as prescribed by the respondents No.1 & 2 and had participated in the written test on 14.7.2013. On 6.11.2013, the respondent No.3 had issued a list of shortlisted candidates on the basis of the written examination and the petitioner's name had figured in the said list. On 18.11.2013, the petitioner had participated in the final test, i.e., the Computer Proficiency Test and passed the same. Vide order dated 18.11.2013, the provisionally selected candidates, including the petitioner herein were directed to undergo a medical examination prior to the cut-off date fixed, i.e., 27.11.2013.
6. At the time when the petitioner had submitted himself for medical examination, he along with the other candidates were called upon to fill up a form. One of the columns in the Form sought information with regard to any criminal case pending against the candidate. Admittedly, at the relevant point in time, FIR No.307/2010 registered by the petitioner's sister-in-law (brother's wife) against him and the other family members was pending investigation, but the reply furnished by the petitioner in the Form was in the negative.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid oversight on the part of the petitioner by giving an incorrect reply in W.P.(C) 5901/2014 Page 3 of 5 response to the aforesaid column that was a part of the Form furnished to him, by the respondents at the time of undertaking the medical examination, was made good by him later on, when he was required to fill up a Verification Form submitted to the respondents on 15.1.2014, wherein he made a mention about the pendency of the aforesaid FIR.
8. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 had issued a final select list for the regional office at Delhi and the name of the petitioner had figured in the said list at Sr.No.6. It is submitted that after that, the respondents did not take any steps to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and finally, he submitted a representation to the respondents(Annexure P-4) requesting that he be issued an appointment letter at the earliest, as he had not been convicted for any offence, by any court of law. Despite the said representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondents sometime in the month of February 2014, no action whatsoever has been taken by it till date.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 states that without admitting any of the averments made by the petitioner in the present petition, the respondents may be permitted to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) and take a decision under written intimation to him.
10. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition, along with pending application with W.P.(C) 5901/2014 Page 4 of 5 directions issued to the respondents No.1 & 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today under written intimation to him. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondents No.1 & 2, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, in accordance with law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 03, 2014 JUDGE
mk/sk
W.P.(C) 5901/2014 Page 5 of 5