Mugada Venkataramana v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 10 Jul 2023 · 2023:DHC:4736-DB
Sanjeev Sachdeva; Manoj Jain
W.P.(C) 8554/2023
2023:DHC:4736-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court corrected typographical errors in its earlier order and disposed of the petition after respondents agreed to induct the petitioner into the Indian Coast Guard recruitment process subject to formalities.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:4736-DB
W.P.(C) 8554/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th July, 2023
W.P.(C) 8554/2023 & CM APPL. 32545/2023
MUGADA VENKATARAMANA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Ojha, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Sr. Panel
Counsel with Mr. Rattan Negi, D.C., Coast Guard.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
(ORAL)
CM. 34233/2023 (seeking correction of order dated 23.06.2023)

1. By this application, petitioner seeks correction of a typographical error that has crept in paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of order dated 23.06.2023.

2. Learned counsel for respondent concedes that the same is a typographical error. Both the counsel submit that the order needs to be corrected and after correction, the said paragraphs 3 and 7 would read as under:-

“3. The Case of the Petitioner is that Respondents had issued a Notification for the recruitment to the post of Navik (D), Navik (Domestic Branch) and Yantrik in the Indian Coast Guard from 8th September, 2022 (1100 hrs) to 22nd September 2022 (1730 hrs). The Petitioner cleared Stage-I Examination for the said post and, thereafter, he was called for Stage-II Examination, however, his candidature was rejected by the Respondents on the ground that application was with false information and did not match with information as per document uploaded in application and was in contravention of mathematics marks in class 12th Marksheet 142/300, mathematics marks in online application 136/300. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel representing both the sides, this Court finds that respondents have rejected candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the information pertaining to his marks did not match with the marks filled by him in the online application form.”

3. Both learned counsel also agree that Para-8 can be deleted in its entirety. Hence, Para-8 is deleted from the order.

4. Application is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

5. This order shall be uploaded as a corrigendum to order dated 23.06.2023. W.P.(C) 8554/2023 & CM APPL. 32545/2023

6. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that respondents have agreed to implement the order dated 23.06.2023 and induct the petitioner under the recruitment process. He submits that since the basic training of the existing batch has already commenced, it has been decided to induct petitioner in the Stage – 3 of the next batch, which is to commence in the month of September – October, 2023 and subject to petitioner clearing the requisite medical and other formalities, he shall be inducted for training along with the next batch.

7. In view of the above statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner stands readdressed and he does not wish to press the petition any further.

8. In view of the assurance given by the respondent that they are implementing the order dated 23.06.2023 and inducting the petitioner in the Stage – 3 along with the next batch, nothing further survives in the petition.

9. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MANOJ JAIN, J JULY 10, 2023