Vague corruption allegations without evidence cannot vitiate fair recruitment selections by independent boards; prior Tribunal validations bind subsequent challenges; no judicial re-assessment of interview marks.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Satya Prakash Pandey, Shri Ashutosh Shukla and Shri Harsh Vardhan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant in all the OAs. Shri K. K Ojha, learned counsel for the official respondents in all the OAs, Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and 16 in OA No. 84/2011, Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 to 15, 18 to 23 in OA No. 85/2011, Shri Ashish Srivastava along with Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 to 13 and 17 to 21, Shri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 85/2011 and Shri Amresh Chandra Upadhyaya learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 242/2011, were present at the time of hearing. All the aforesaid three cases have been heard together and therefore are being decided by way of a common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties in all the OAs and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants had applied for the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), Fireman and Telephone Operator against the advertisement 07.08.2010 published in the daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’. All the applicants appeared in the written examination / first stage of the recruitment and they were successful. Thereafter, they also appeared in the next stage of the selection process. Interview of the applicants were also conducted but in an arbitrary manner, on the basis of favoritism, nepotism and corruption (bribery), private respondents were empanelled for selection. Applicants moved repeated representations before the Competent Authority but no action was taken. Referring to the relief clause, it was also argued that entire selection process is vitiated due to the aforesaid facts. Applicants despite performing excellently in the tests, were not empanelled in the final panel and they were also awarded lesser marks in the interview than the private respondents. It is also argued that performance of the private respondents in the interview was not good but they were awarded higher marks only to give them selection on the basis of corruption. It is next argued that OAs be allowed and selection of the private respondents be set aside / cancelled and a direction be also issued to constitute a high powered committee to inquire into the complaints made by the petitioner and till then, non of the candidates selected through the selection process under question, be allowed to join the post as the selection has not been fair and transparent.

4. Learned counsel for the official respondents argued that selection is fair and is done by a proper board constituted under the Rules. Every precaution has been taken to ensure the fairness of the selection. Allegations leveled in the representations as well as OA are false. No substantive evidence in support of the allegations have been filed. When list of selected candidates of fireman was cancelled, selected candidates appeared before this Tribunal through OA No 180 of 2011 and OA No 262 of 2011. Both the OAs were decided by way of a common judgment on 21.12.2012 and the OAs were allowed directing the respondents that the selected candidates be called for their document verification etc. rectifying the clerical mistake. It was also argued that in compliance of the direction given by the Tribunal, fresh result was prepared and private respondents selected against the fireman vacancy have also joined duty and are still working on their post since the date of joining. It was also argued that again one Sounbir Singh aggrieved by the final selection filed OA No 476 of 2016 before the Tribunal but the same was dismissed. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it was further argued that on earlier occas