Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 1153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
F.I. REBELLO & B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Baban s/o. Sadashiv Waghmare and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.2707 of 2008
Decided on : 13th August, 2008
Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate holding for Mr. Vijay A. Dhakne , Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No.4
Mr. Umakant Patil , AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for concrete and relevant material to justify the cancellation of the entire selection process and the importance of segregating tainted candidates from non-tainted candidates before canceling the entire selection process.
Headnote:
Selection Process - Appointment to the post of 'Parichar' - [2006] - [Article 14 of the Constitution, Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., Central Bureau of Investigation had cancelled the selection process which was conducted for 134 posts of Constables, Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, Indraprret Singh Kahlon and others Vs. State of Punjab and others] - The court discussed the cancellation of the entire selection process for the appointment to the post of 'Parichar' and the legal principles related to the cancellation of selection processes in similar cases. The court highlighted the need for concrete and relevant material to justify the cancellation of the entire selection process and emphasized the importance of segregating tainted candidates from non-tainted candidates before canceling the entire selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the cancellation of the entire selection process for the appointment to the post of 'Parichar' after allegations of malpractices during the examination. The petitioners argued that the cancellation of the selection process enmasse in the absence of any findings regarding irregularity violated the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the entire selection process was not sustainable in law and that there was no material to establish irregularity, lack of transparency, or financial irregularity in the entire selection process. The court also noted that the cancellation was arbitrary and unjustified, except for two candidates whose selection was under a shadow of doubt.
Issues: The issues involved the cancellation of the entire selection process for the appointment to the post of 'Parichar' based on allegations of malpractices and the violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of concrete and relevant material to justify the cancellation of the entire selection process, the importance of segregating tainted candidates from non-tainted candidates before canceling the entire selection process, and the arbitrary nature of the cancellation.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order cancelling the selection process, except for two candidates, and directed the respondent Zilla Parishad to declare the result of the oral interviews and complete the entire selection process in accordance with the law.
[PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.
The petitioners in both the petitions, who have succeeded in the written test held for the purpose of selection to the post of "Parichar" and who have been invited for the oral interviews, have filed the present petitions, challenging the order dated 10th March, 2008 passed by the respondent No.2 State of Maharashtra, thereby cancelling the entire selection process undertaken for appointment to the said post of "Parichar" and issuing further directions for holding a fresh selection process.
2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under :-
That, an advertisement No.1/2006 was issued by the respondent Zilla Parishad, Beed for appointment of 143 posts of Parichar in the District Service Cadre - D. The applications were invited from various categories. In all 6941 candidates were held qualified for appearing for the written examination. Out of the 6941 candidates, 223 candidates were found eligible for oral interviews, including the petitioners. The merit list of the candidates was published on 10/6/2007 and they were called for oral interviews on 11/6/2007. After the oral interviews were held and the selection process had come to a near conclusion, a stay order was issued by the Desk Officer of the State of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, thereby directing not to declare the final selection list in pursuance to the complaint dated 11/6/2002 received from the President, Zilla Parishad, Beed, alleging therein the malpractices committed during the examination.
3. An enquiry was directed to be held by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. A report came to be submitted by the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad, submitting therein that the entire selection process was transparent, confidential, secret and paramount consideration was given to the merits of the candidate without paying heed to the political interference and pressure. It was further stated that as the office bearers could not get their favoured candidates selected for the oral interview, they started to complain about the selection process. It appears that, thereafter a petition came to be filed before this court bearing W.P. No. 6881/2007, which came to be disposed of by this court vide order dated 8.1.2008, directing the State Government to take a final decision on the recruitment procedure within six months.
4. Another report came to be submitted by the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) Aurangabad, coming to the conclusion that no material was available in the entire selection process regarding breach of the confidentiality or financial irregularities. However, the said authority recommended fresh selection process, so that there should not be any suspicion regarding the transparency of the selection process. On the basis of the said recommendations, an order came to be issued by the State of Maharashtra on 10/3/2008, thereby cancelling the selection process and directing steps to be taken for fresh selection process. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitions.
5. Shri Talekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that though the authorities of the State Government and Zilla Parishad have found that the entire selection process was transparent and unbiased, and that there was no material regarding the financial irregularity, the State Government has arbitrarily cancelled the entire selection process. He further submits that the cancellation of the selection process enmasse in the absence of any findings regarding irregularity, is totally unsustainable in law. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the selection of any of the candidate was tainted, it was possible to weed away the tainted candidates and the selection process, at the most could have been cancelled only in so far as those candidates are concerned. It is submitted that the cancellation of the
