<p align="justify" class="title">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 he had cleared the qualifying exam in 2015.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">It also slapped costs of Rs 20,000 on the paramilitary force.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">Sannu told the court that it had given CISF eight weeks to offer appointment.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">The high court, after perusing the communication, agreed with the petitioner that it did not appear to be a letter of appointment. </p>
<p align="justify" class="title">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 he had cleared the qualifying exam in 2015.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">It also slapped costs of Rs 20,000 on the paramilitary force.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">Sannu told the court that it had given CISF eight weeks to offer appointment.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">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.</p>.<p align="justify" class="bodytext">The high court, after perusing the communication, agreed with the petitioner that it did not appear to be a letter of appointment. </p>