The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for filing a suit for compensation for breach of contract begins when the contract is broken, and subsequent events do not extend the limitation period.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

I.A. 17975/2019 (under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff as being barred by limitation and there being no valid cause of action arising in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

2. The facts relevant for the present adjudication are that the plaintiff had issued Advertisement No. 02/2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for 558 vacancies in 33 cadres/posts of Junior Executives, Manager and Deputy General Manager/Deputy Company Secretary, respectively against which a total number of 1,35,367 candidates registered for various posts.

3. The plaintiff vide letter dated 10.07.2012 engaged the defendant to conduct the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2012 on mutually agreed scope of work i.e. development of bilingual objective type paper consisting of 100 questions, fee of the OMR Sheet, processing results and generation of/supply of category-wise list and Test Administration Costs, printing of attendance sheet, honorarium payable to the Chief Test Administrator, venue hire charges and other expenses. The plaintiff paid a total amount of Rs.1,55,12,374/- to the defendant towards the recruitment process carried out by the defendant pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2012.

4. Subsequently, the corporate vigilance department of the plaintiff herein examined the process of recruitment and submitted a preliminary report to the Chairman of the plaintiff vide CVO Note dated 09.05.2013. As per the preliminary report, several irregularities were noticed in the recruitment process, especially in the written examination conducted by the defendant. Later, Chairman of the plaintiff approved to refer the case to Central Bureau of Investigation on recommendation of Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO). The case was referred to the CBI vide letter dated 30.05.2013. Pursuant to the said letter dated 30.05.2013, there were correspondences exchanged between the office of the CVO and the CBI.

5. The plaintiff vide notice dated 10.05.2013 put the recruitment process relating to Advertisement No. 02/2012 on hold. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 19.08.2013 was issued to the defendant on the basis of irregularities in conducting the exams requiring it to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it including debarring the defendant.

6. Keeping in mind the gravity of the matter, the plaintiff sought legal advice from Additional Solicitor General (ASG). The ASG vide his opinion dated 06.09.2013 opined that an enquiry Committee may be constituted to enquire whether cancellation of the previous examination was warranted and whether a fresh examination is to be conducted.

7. Pursuant to opinion of the Ld. ASG dated 06.09.2013, the Competent authority of the plaintiff vide order dated 08.10.2013 constituted a Committee in connection with the recruitment work undertaken by the defendant. The Committee vide its letter dated 12.11.2013 submitted its report dated 07.11.2013 whereby it opined that the process of written examination conducted by defendant was wholly questionable. It recommended that written test be conducted again.

8. The plaintiff placed the report of the Committee before the Competent authority. The report of the Committee was approved by the Competent Authority of the plaintiff i.e. the Chairman on 31.01.2014. Accordingly, a notification to this effect was uploaded on the website of the plaintiff on 21.03.2014 that due to the administrative reasons, it is decided to redo the entire selection process afresh. A press notification was also given in this regard in the leading newspapers on 24.03.2014.

9. In the meanwhile, the decision of the plaintiff to put the recruitment process on hold was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 399/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2014, thereby direc