Appoint the OBC candidate who had cleared the exam within two weeks: HC to CISF

The high court has said that if the CISF fails to do so then its Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) concerned shall be present in court on the next date of hearing on November 14.

By PTI

Updated: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 13:54 [IST]

New Delhi, Nov 1: The Delhi High Court has given two weeks time to the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to appoint an OBC candidate as an Assistant Sub-Inspector, a post for which the candidate, Sanjeev Kumar, had cleared the qualifying exam in 2015.

The candidate had cleared the short service commission combined graduate level exam 2015, but was not appointed as he had given his OBC certificate after the cut-off date for submitting it. The high court in July last year had cited a Supreme Court decision which allowed accepting of belatedly filed certificates and directed the CISF to verify the candidate's OBC certificate and to appoint him in the paramilitary force.

As the direction had not been complied with by the CISF, whose appeal against the July last order was dismissed by the apex court in February this year, Justice A K Chawla gave it two weeks time from October 23 to appoint the candidate, Sanjeev Kumar.

The high court has said that if the CISF fails to do so then its Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) concerned shall be present in court on the next date of hearing on November 14. It also slapped costs of Rs 20,000 on the paramilitary force. The order came on the candidate's contempt plea filed through advocate Tushar Sannu contending that over a year had gone by since the high court's July 2016 order, but no appointment order has been issued. Sannu told the court that it had given CISF eight weeks to offer appointment.

He also told the court that a communication sent by CISF in April this year was not a letter of appointment, as claimed by the force, instead it only asked Kumar to undergo some training. The high court, after perusing the communication, agreed with the petitioner that it did not appear to be a letter of appointment.

PTI