SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 672

2003(5) Supreme 283
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8356 of 2002)
Decided on 30-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok K. Srivastava and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mathai M. Paikeday, Sr. Advocate, Robsoo Paul, Ram Niwas Buri and V.K. Sidharthan, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 226 - Irregularities in the selection -CBI invited applications for 134 posts of Constables-Male/Female (Executive) and 5 Male Constables - The respondent was served with a Communication and was selected for appointment to the post of Constable- Later the respondent and others were informed their selection had been cancelled- The Division Bench specifically noticed the nature of irregularities on the basis of which the selections were cancelled- High Court allowed Writ Petition and directed the CBI to correct the mistakes in the selections by rearranging the select list and completing the selection as per the re-evaluation found to be necessitated -When the candidates indulging and benefited by the alleged irregularities were identified, it was unwarranted to cancel the entire selection and deprive of the other selected candidates from their right to appointment- Appeal dismissed [Para 6]

JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-Leave granted.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI ) invited applications on 29.3.2000 for filling up 134 posts of Constables-Male/Female (Executive) and 5 Male Constables (Motor Transport) in various branches of its office all over India, indicating the qualifications to be fulfilled by the incumbents for selection stipulating for the holding of a written examination and interview for the purpose at Hyderabad, fixing the date of recruitment as 24.4.2000. Several persons including the private respondent applied and the candidates were called for undergoing written test on 24.4.2000 and interview on 30.4.2000 at Hyderabad. After passing the same, the contesting respondent was served with a Communication dated 25.5.2000 that he was selected for appointment to the post of Constable (Group C post) in the CBI in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3590-80-4590. The Chief Medical Officer - Civil Hospital, Cherthala, was also subsequently asked to examine him to find out and certify the candidate s medical fitness and forward the same in the prescribed form by 7.6.2000, indicating some of the details to be furnished therein in clear and specific terms, asking the candidate to report before the other Medical Officer for the purpose. The said test regarding medical fitness also was undergone successfully and the respondent was found to satisfy all those requirements.

2. While the candidates, including the respondent, were anxiously waiting for orders of appointment, the respondent and other selected candidates were informed by a Communication dated 8.1.2001 that though they were selected for appointment and were asked to undergo medical test - the selection process for appointment already conducted and the list of selected candidates has been cancelled by the Competent Authority of CBI. It appears that, in the meantime, some of the unsuccessful candidates, who appeared for selection in Hyderabad, filed an application (OA No. 1034 of 2000) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT ), Principal Bench at New Delhi, challenging the selections making allegations of favouritism and nepotism on the part of officers in conducting Physical Efficiency Test. The CBI seems to have opposed the same refuting such allegations asserting that the impugned process of selection was conducted under the overall supervision of the Chairman, Recruitment Board and that the Physical Efficiency Test was also conducted under the supervision of a Superintendent of Police. As for the challenge made to the written test, it was asserted by the CBI that sufficient steps were taken for proper conduct of the test though held in the CRPF Ground on an evening and no favouritism whatsoever was shown to select anyone, out of the way. The selection was, therefore, said to have been strictly in accordance with the governing instructions. It further transpired that the Director, CBI, on receipt of complaints relating to the selections made, constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of a Joint Director with two Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, CBI, as Members to enquire into the same and on submission of their Report and considering the same, ordered cancellation of the recruitment process held at Hyderabad. Placing such information before the CAT at New Delhi, dismissal of the OA, as having become infructuous, seems to have been sought and the Tribunal also dismissed the same as having been rendered infructuous in the light of the subsequent turn of events.

3. While so, on receipt of the Communication dated 8.1.2001, the respondent herein filed OA No. 327 of 2001 before the CAT s Bench at Ernakulam, Kerala State, challenging the cancellation. By an Order dated 10.4.2001, the same appears to have been dismissed at the admission stage itself, observing that the action relating to cancellation having been taken bona fide and in public interest after due deliberation, does not call for interference and there was no legitimate cause





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top