Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)

Satish Kumar vs Gnct Of Delhi & Anr. on 22 May, 2013

3. The relevant facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement of 2009, the applicant applied for the post of SI (Ex.) under the "Departmental UR category". The applicant, having qualified in the physical endurance and measurement test, he appeared for written test and he qualified in the written test and appeared for the interview as well. The applicant had secured 161 marks, whereas the cut off of marks for the "Departmental UR category" was 163 marks and as he had secured less mark, he was declared disqualified in the final result. Some of the similarly situated candidates who had secured 159 and 156 marks had filed OAs and ultimately they were appointed in subsequent lists prepared in the "open/ UR category", by virtue of the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5220/2012, titled Rajender Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. The applicant after the said judgment in Rajender Singh's case filed this OA contending that he should have been considered under "open/ UR category".
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 74 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Head Constable Dharam Pal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 23 April, 2012

4. The counsel for the respondents brought to our notice another case of identically situated candidate as that of the applicant in the instant case passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10489/2015 on 18.05.2016, titled Hariom, Head Constable Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the applicant in that case was a fence- sitters had approached the Court after a long delay and hence he is 10 OA 1203/2014 not entitled to any relief. Relevant para 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted below:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1