Pawan Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission

Delhi High Court · 12 Apr 2018 · 2018:DHC:8892-DB
Hima Kohli; Pratibha Rani
W.P.(C) 3550/2018
2018:DHC:8892-DB
administrative other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that candidates accused of unfair means must be given a show cause notice and opportunity to respond before final cancellation of their candidature.

Full Text
Translation output
$-32, 33, 2 and 3.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3550/2018 and CM APPL. 14022/2018 , PAWAN KUMAR . Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sweta Rani and Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS Respondents
Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocate for R1 to R3 with Mr. Gorakh Singh AC, CISF, Mr. Vinesh Kumar, AD, SSC, Mr. Devendra Singh AC, CISF.
W.P.(C) 3566/2018 and CMAPPL. 14050/2018
PAWAN Petitioner
Through: Ms. SwetaRani and Mr. AnantAgarwal,
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS Respondents
Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr. Gorakh Singh AC, CISF, Mr. Devendra Singh AC, CISF.
W.P.(C) 3357/2018 and CM APPL. 13252/2018
VIKAS KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
STAFF SELECATION COMMISSION AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for Mr. Devendra Singh AC,.CISF.
W.P.(C) 3374/2018 and CM APPL. 13281/2018
JOGENDER SINGH ' Petitioner
W.P.(C) 3550/2018 & other connected matters Page 1 of3
2018:DHC:8892-DB
VERSUS
- STAFF SELECATION COMMISSION AND QRS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for Mr. Devendra Singh Ac, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
12.04.2018
ORDER

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 06.01.2018, passed in each case by^ the Senior Commandant, Dossier Scrutiny Board, CISF, whereunder they have been informed that on examining the relevant records, itwas found that they have indulged in unfair activities, which fact has been confinned by the Forensic Report issued by the CFSL, Shimla and therefore, their candidatures to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPF, NIA, SSF and Assam Rifles in respect ofthe examination conducted in the year 2015, are liable to be cancelled by the respondent No.l/Staff Selection Commission (SSC). • • ^. V,, •. •• • • '

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that before passing the aforesaid orders, the respondents did not solicit any response from the petitioners, by issuing them notices to show Cjause and affording th6m an opportunity ofhearing.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the'respondent No.l/SSC submits on instructions that vide order dated 06.01.2018, passed by the CISF WP.(C) 3550/2018 &other connectedmatters Page 2of[3] I r y and impugned by the petitioners herein, the respoiidents have only intimated them that their candidatur^^^liable to be cancelled by the respondent No.1/SSC butthe SSGhas nottaken anysteps till now, He submits that SSC proposes to issue notices of show cause to the petitioners and solicit a response from them andonlyafterreceiving thdrreplies, shall any. passed. Needful shall be done within four weeks.,

4. ' While binding the respondent No.l to the statement record hei^inabove, the present petitions are disposed of alongwith the pending ^ applications.