The selection process for the post of Chowkidar was quashed due to unfair practices and violation of established norms, reaffirming that participation in a selection process does not confer a vested right to appointment.

Order :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. These petitions are filed seeking quashing of order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) dated 11.08.2022 to the extent it quashes the selection process qua the appointment of Chowkidar. Shri Satish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘successful candidate’) selected to the post of Chowkidar has filed writ petition No.8877/2023. The petitioner in DBCWP No.12630/2023 Shri Rajkumar Pachouri (hereinafter referred to ‘petitioner’) appeared in written examination.

2. The brief facts are that selection for various posts was advertised on 20.04.2012. The dispute in these cases is with regard to the post of Chowkidar for which one post was advertised. As per the advertisement, the selection was to be made strictly on the basis of merit. The process comprised of written test and skill test wherever necessary. Marks for written test and for skill test were 150 and 50 respectively. After conducting the written test, interview was added to the process and 175 marks were allocated for interview.

3. The petitioner secured 71 marks in written test and 70 marks in interview. The successful candidate secured 61 marks in the written test, lowest marks secured by any candidate in written test. But he was awarded 152 marks in interview 56 marks above the highest marks given to other candidate. The petitioner filed the Original Application (O.A.) before the tribunal for setting aside the selection of the successful candidate. Further directions were sought that the petitioner be selected on the basis of marks secured in the written test.

3.1 The respondent took a stand that for the skill test the weightage was of 50 marks but since there were seven persons in the interview board and to ease the process, twenty five marks each were allocated per member for moderation purposes. Further that the skill test was necessary as the selection was for sensitive defence establishment affected by dacoity. The stand taken by the respondent was prima facie not found to be fair. The tribunal called for the record and the Appendix-M i.e. marks given to each of the candidate was revealed and this document was not produced before the tribunal along with the reply filed by the official respondents. The tribunal held that all well established norms for selection evolved through judicial process were given a go-bye, the rules were changed between the game and disproportionate weightage was given to the interview. The selection qua the appointment of Chowkidar was quashed.

4. The observations were made that deliberate attempt of misleading was made by the official respondents and had record not been called the attempt of the official respondents would have gone unnoticed. The tribunal exercised a self restrain for not ordering prosecution for forgery, but directed the higher officials of the respondent-department to conduct departmental inquiry to fix responsibility for filing a false written statement and to take disciplinary action against the official concerned. As the entire selection process was quashed, the prayer of the petitioner seeking appointment on the post of Chowkidar was not granted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is litigating for twelve years and no benefit has accrued to him. The prayer is that the petitioner be appointed to the post of Chowkidar on the basis of the written test marks. Reliance is placed upon this judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Biswas & Ors. vs. Union of India & ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 774 to contend that instead of quashing the entire selection process the matter should have been remitted back for selection in accordance with the scheme of examination given in the advertisement.

6. Learned counsel for the successful candidate submits that the impugned order was passed by the tribunal without properly serving notice on successful candidate. It was only after the termination of service consequent to the impugned order that