Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.M. BORDE, A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Prakash S/o. Bhagaji Wani & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition No. 625 of 2017, With Review Application No. 6, 8, 9, 10, 7, 5 of 2018, With Civil Application No. 4094 of 2018, In Review Application St No. 35318, 35318 of 2017, In Writ Petition No. 12117 of 2016, 9447, 9910, 9837, 9910, 30, 10373, 10373, 11801 of 2017, 93 of 2018
Decided On : 04-05-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.R. Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondents:Dr. S.D. Tawshikar, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 – Investigation - Appointments were immediately stopped - Petitions involve common questions of law and - These are commonly heard and court dispose of by this common judgment - Union of India and Chief Post-Master General seek review common orders passed in various Writ Petitions whereby respondents who were selected for post of Postman or Multitasking Staff and whose selections were cancelled were ordered to be given postings - Common order was passed in Writ Petition four connected writ petitions - In remaining writ petitions later on same order was followed - Civil Application for condo nation of delay days in preferring review petition - Since several other petitions involving same subject are already admitted and common question of law and facts are involved considering larger public interest court condone delay caused in preferring review petition on ground of bureaucratic slow process and take up all review petitions – Held, Judgment was delivered even before that in Maharashtra vigilance enquiry was directed - Complaints were received - Apex Court has relied upon above observations Gujarat High Court - In these proceedings court do not want to decide whether there were large scale malpractices or discrepancies requiring cancellation of entire recruitment process or not - Both parties have filed several judgments on point reasonableness as against proportionality to be observed in such cases - However proper course will be to decide only review petitions and if those are allowed main matters should be fixed for hearing giving full opportunity to both parties to argue on merits – Court however observe that orders passed by us were based on misconception of facts - It was on account of no proper legal assistance counsel for Union - Statements or concessions given by advocate were factually wrong and those would not be binding on litigant - Therefore in light of judgment in BCCIs case court find that these are fit cases for allowing review - In view above finding sit is not necessary for us to consider arguments advanced and judgments cited by both parties with regard to jurisdiction of this court to entertain writ petitions in such matters - As earlier stated court are also not going into merits - Court therefore allow review petitions and quash and set aside judgments challenged on ground of error apparent on face of record - Court restore all writ petitions to file and fix them for further consideration - In light of setting aside impugned judgment order necessary consequences will follow – Court therefore hold that original petitioners will not be entitled for any protection if they are already reinstated as per our orders – Petitions dismissed
A. M. DHAVALE, J.
1. These Review Petitions involve common questions of law and facts. These are commonly heard and we dispose of by this common judgment. The Union of India and Chief Post-Master General seek review of common orders passed in various Writ Petitions whereby the respondents who were selected for the post of Postman or Multitasking Staff and whose selections were cancelled were ordered to be given postings. On 02.08.2017, a common order was passed in Writ Petition No. 9910 of 2010 and four connected writ petitions. In remaining writ petitions, later on, the same order was followed.
2. Civil Application No. 4094 of 2018 is for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring the review petition. Since several other petitions involving the same subject are already admitted and common question of law and facts are involved, considering the larger public interest, we condone the delay caused in preferring the review petition on the ground of bureaucratic slow process and take up all review petitions.
3. The following chart shows the names of original petitioners and the writ petition numbers presented by them.
Sr.
No. Review Petition No.
Writ Petition No.
Orig. Petitioners
Date of Order
1
5 of 2018
11801 of 2017
Maruti Kalyankar & 9 Ors.
26/09/17
2
6 of 2018
12117 of 2016
Prakash Wani & 56 Ors.
02/08/17
3
7 of 2018
9837 of 2017
Rahul Kale & 15 Ors.
02/08/17
4
8 of 018
30 of 2017
Bhagwan Ghuge & 55 Ors.
02/08/17
5
9 of 2018
9447 of 17
Bharat Chavan & 13 Ors.
02/08/17
6
St. 35318 of 2017
10373 of 17
Shivpratap Jadhavar & 19 Ors.
21/08/17
7
10 of 2018
9910 of 2017
Amit Dongare & Anr.
02/08/17
4. As per admitted facts, recruitment process for the posts of Postman and Mail guard and Multitasking Staff was initiated in the month of 2015 and Manipal Technology Ltd was selected as Outsourcing Agency by an agreement dt.13.01.2015. Notification inviting online applications was published on 24.01.2015. The examination form for the post of Postman-cum-Mail guard for 1701 seats was conducted on 29.03.2015 and examination for 733 posts of Multitask staff was held on 03.05.2015. The figures of candidates applied, held eligible and selected are as follows.
Sr. No.
Post
Applications received
Candidates appeared
Candidates selected
1
Postman/Mail guard
575383
373979
1701
2
Multi Tasking Staff
213552
119212
733
Total
788935
493191
2434
5. The process of appointment was started and the training course was also started in respect of some of the selected candidates.
6. Thereafter, the Postal Department noticed many irregularities in the examination held and the OMRs filled up and the answer papers of the candidates. There were also very good marks scored in Marathi subject by non Marathi candidates. On 10.01.2016, internal investigation was commenced on the complaints received. After preliminary findings, on 10.06.2016, further appointments were immediately stopped. The inquiry revealed following irregularities, discrepancies and doubtful conditions.
(i) The signatures and the photographs of the candidates affixed on their applications did not tally with the signatures or photographs shown on the admission card or application form.
(ii) Non-Maharashtrian candidates surprisingly scored higher marks in Marathi subject.
(iii) The investigation disclosed that, the conduct of the examination was compromised which resulted in large number of below average candidates entering into the merit list.
(iv) The outsourcing agency who conducted the examination committed several mistakes. The entire evaluation process was vitiated by such mistakes.
(v) It was difficult to separate tainted and nontainted candidates. It was suspected that the outsourcing agency was involved in the malpractices. The Department took
