Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Piyush Verma – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8653 of 2022 and CM APPL. No. 26061 of 2022
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Communication - Selection Process - Advertisement No. 01/2019-FCI Category III - Summary of Acts and Sections: Advertisement No. 01/2019-FCI Category-III, Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The court analyzed the obligation of the respondent to communicate through email and phone number during the selection process, and the fair opportunity afforded to the petitioner. The court found no absolute obligation to communicate through both modes and concluded that the petitioner was duly communicated through the registered email address, and fair opportunities were given for document verification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) due to non-appearance for document verification. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to communicate through both email and phone number, and that he was not afforded a fair opportunity before the cancellation of his candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no absolute obligation on the respondent to communicate through both email and phone number. It concluded that the petitioner was duly communicated through the registered email address and was given fair opportunities for document verification.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent had an obligation to communicate through both email and phone number, and whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity before the cancellation of his candidature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no absolute obligation on the respondent to communicate through both email and phone number, and that fair opportunities were given to the petitioner for document verification.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit, along with the pending applications.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a. To Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and to further direct the respondent that notice dated 28.1.2022 in respect of petitioner be withdrawn, order dated 7.3.2022 whereby the representation of petitioner made against the notice dated 28.1.2022 has been rejected and order dated 18.5.2022 whereby the representation of petitioner dated 14.3.2022 has been rejected be quashed and further the candidature of petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-III(Deport) be restored and petitioner be subjected for document verification and petitioner be given appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III(Depot) as per merit obtained in present selection process with all consequential benefit including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances and/or
b) Pass such or further Order(s)/Direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice."
2. The record before this Court reveals the following set of facts which has led to the filing of the instant case:
a. The respondent no. 1 invited applications for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) vide Advt. No. 01/2019-FCI Category III published in the Employment news dated 23rd February 2019. The petitioner partook in the said recruitment process and appeared in the process as a candidate in the Category of Other Backwards Classes (hereinafter "OBC").
b. The petitioner appeared in the pre-exam of the selection process held in the first week of July, 2019 and cleared the same. Thereafter, he appeared for the main examination held on 27th July 2019 and secured 66.25 marks out of 120 in the written test. Upon securing qualifying marks, the petitioner was provisionally selected and placed in the waiting list.
c. Subsequently, on 17th December 2021 and 3rd January 2022, the respondent sent Call Letter to the candidates calling upon them for verification of documents for the selection process.
d. On 28th January 2022, the respondent issued a notice dated 28th January 2022, thereby cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot).
e. The petitioner upon receiving such information, made representation to the respondent vide email on 26th February 2022 against the cancellation of his candidature. To the said representation, the respondent replied on 7th March 2022 stating therein the reason for cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner being non-appearance for verification as well as non-submission of documents for verification and thereby, dismissing the representation so made in that regard.
f. Thereafter, the petitioner made another detailed representation against the reply dated 14th March 2022 against the notices issued by the respondent on 7th March 2022 and 28th January 2022. Ultimately, the respondents passed the order dated 18th May 2022 rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the cancellation of his candidature, reiterating the reason of absence from document verification conducted by the respondents.
g. Aggrieved by the aforementioned, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking the reliefs as stated above inter alia praying for setting aside/quashing of the orders/notices/replies cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) and rejecting his representations made to that effect.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all the relevant details and particulars such as name, address, phone number and email address were duly furnished by the petitioner at the time of filling up the application form at the time of selection process. The petitioner had provided his email address, i.e., `piyush_020690@yahoo.com.' and his phone no. `8285787045' to the respondent.
The main legal point established is that there was no absolute obligation on the respondent to communicate through both email and phone number, and fair opportunities were given to the petitioner for....
Point of Law : It is open for the authority concerned not to fill up vacancies but such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
The last date for submission of the OBC certificate as relevant for reckoning the OBC status of the candidate.
The court ruled that candidates must adhere to the selection process terms, and failure to appear for document verification despite multiple opportunities negates any claim for relief.
Tampering with an OMR answer sheet invalidates a candidate's application; expiration of select panels limits appointment validity.
Non-speaking cancellation of selection process for technical irregularities without prejudice is arbitrary and invalid; must provide reasons and notice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
