MANOJ KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 08.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 2625/2019 MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tejas Bhonge, proxy counsel for Mr. Ajit Kakkar. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadv, CGSC with Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra, Mr. Neeraj Paulose Raj, Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 05.02.2019, whereby the appointment granted to him by the respondent has been cancelled/withdrawn. 2. The facts giving rise to the petitioner's grievance lie in a very narrow compass-the petitioner, vied for the post of fireman, pursuant to advertisement published in employment news between 28.04.2018 to 04.05.2018, whereby applications for filling up of 95 posts of Firemen at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, were invited. Pursuant to the recruitment process held for the post, the petitioner was selected and was issued an appointment order dated 05.12.2018 and was allowed to join on the post of Fireman Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR W.P.(C) 2625/2019 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:12:39 (erstwhile Fireman Gr.-II & Gr.-I). 3. Pursuant to an RTI application filed by an unsuccessful candidate, the respondents realized that the answer sheets of all the candidates had been checked with wrong set of answer key due to which, wrong result qua series ‘B’ & ‘D’ was prepared. 4. On realizing such mistake, the respondents recalled the result and appointments already granted to the candidates who were given question booklet ‘B’ & ‘D’. The result was later on re-evaluated with correct answer key. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued t