IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Rajnikant Ojha & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23062 of 2013
Decided on: 02-09-2014
CANCELLATION - Selection Process - Employment Notice no. 1 of 2008 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the cancellation of the selection process for the post of Water Carrier to the extent it related to the recruitment held at Patna Centre. The court analyzed the irregularities found in the selection process and the failure of the competent authority to issue a fresh notification as per the cancellation notice. The court highlighted the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. The court also referred to the doctrine of sub silentio and emphasized the need for due application of mind by the competent authority. The court concluded that the cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the respondents failed to comply with the terms of the cancellation notice, depriving the petitioners of their right to be considered for appointment. The court directed the respondents to compensate the petitioners and ordered an enquiry into the circumstances of non-compliance with the cancellation notice, with the Chairman of the Railway Board responsible for carrying out the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Water Carrier as per Employment Notice no. 1 of 2008. The selection process was cancelled, and the petitioners were not considered for appointment. The petitioners sought relief from the court, alleging violation of their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the respondents failed to comply with the terms of the cancellation notice, depriving the petitioners of their right to be considered for appointment. The court also emphasized the need for due application of mind by the competent authority.
Issues: The issues included the arbitrary cancellation of the selection process, non-compliance with the terms of the cancellation notice, and the violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the respondents failed to comply with the terms of the cancellation notice, depriving the petitioners of their right to be considered for appointment. The court emphasized the need for due application of mind by the competent authority and referred to the doctrine of sub silentio.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to compensate the petitioners and ordered an enquiry into the circumstances of non-compliance with the cancellation notice, with the Chairman of the Railway Board responsible for carrying out the order.
1. Annexure-1 to the writ application dated 7.3.2008 is an advertisement being Employment Notice No. 1 of 2008, inviting applications from eligible male candidates for filling up various posts of ancillary staffs in Railway Protection Force and Railway Protection Special Force. From the contents of the said advertisement, it would appear that vacancies were notified against various posts of ancillary staffs mentioned in the said advertisement for different recruitment Centre including the recruitment Centre at Patna. From the said advertisement, it would appear that 86 unreserved posts of Water Carrier were advertised for different Railways for which the recruitment was to be held at the recruitment Centre, Patna. The petitioners, two in number, were applicants for the said unreserved posts of Water Carrier and had participated in the selection process held at Recruitment Centre, Patna.
2. This is not in dispute that the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement. The selection test was conducted in the month of November, 2008.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they participated in 100 M race and qualified. They also cleared the height and chest measurement criteria. It is their specific case in paragraph 7 of the writ application that they appeared in the physical fitness test and trade test that took place over the next two days and qualified all tests, which has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The denial to the statement made in paragraph 7 of the writ application in the counter affidavit is only to the extent that according to the respondents the petitioners were not assured about the appointment letter, as final merit list duly approved by the competent authority was not published.
4. The petitioners are said to have waited for several months but they could not get any communication from the respondents despite their visits to the offices of the respondents. The petitioner no.1 thereafter, sought for an information under the Right to Information Act from Public Information Officer cum-Deputy Chief Security Commissioner (Respondent NO.3) regarding the status of appointment of ancillary staff notified vide said Employment Notice no. 1 of 2008. The respondent No.3, Deputy Chief Security Commissioner/RPF/ECR/Hajipur in reply to the said query made in the application under Right to Information Act informed by a communication dated 7.1.2010 that the recruitment notified vide Employment Notice No. 1 of 2008 to the extent it related to Patna Centre had been cancelled by the Chief Security Commissioner/RPF/NR. Along with the said communication, a notice published in the Employment News dated 26.9.2009- 2.10.2009 was also enclosed. The said information dated 7.1.2010 has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the present writ application. The contents of the notice published in the said Employment News annexed along with the said letter dated 7.1.2010 is crucial for adjudication of the present case and it is therefore being quoted hereinbelow:-
“The Employment Notice no. 01/2008 dated 7.3.2008 published in Employment News dated 22-28 March, 2008 for the post of Ancillary Staff in RPF/RPSF for recruitment Centre Patna stands cancelled. Fresh notification for recruitment of Ancillary Staff will be issued shortly. However, all the candidates found fit in physical measurement during the recruitment held at Patna Centre will be allowed to appear in the fresh recruitment. They need not apply afresh”.
5. From the said notice as quoted hereinabove, it would appear that selection process for appointment to various ancillary staff was cancelled only to the extent it related to the process conducted for Patna Centre. The said notice indicated that fresh notification for recruitment of ancillary staff will be issued “Shortly”. It also indicated that all candidates found fit for physical measurement during the recruitment held at Patna Centre will be allowed to appear in
Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthivalnikathu
East Coast Rly. Vs. Mahander Appa
Union of India Vs. S.P. Tripathi
State of U.P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemiclas Ltd.
Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty
Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu
Food Corporation of India Vs. Bhanu
Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of .P reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212
Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58
Krishan Yadav vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.