Inaction on false representation affects rightful appointment; timely adjudication on eligibility is imperative to uphold integrity in employment processes.

Order :

C.V.Karthikeyan J.

The petitioner in M.A.No.149 of 2021 in O.A.No.123 of 2017, aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2022, dismissing the said Miscellaneous Application, has filed the present Writ Petition.

2.The petitioner had filed O.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking records relating to Order No.F.1/45(12)/2013 – R.II dated 02.01.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent, Union Public Service Commission and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue appointment order to him to the post of Senior Scientific Officer Gr.II (Explosives) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) w.e.f. 16.12.2014 and also to pay monetary and service benefits.

3.The petitioner, D.Kumar had earlier worked in Cordite Factory at Aruvankadu and when later working as Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendent in Southern Railway, was posted in the Laboratory of Diesel Loco Shed at Trichy. He applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II (Explosives) in CFSL pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.05.2013 published in the Employment News by the 2^nd respondent / Union Public Service Commission and also uploaded in their website. The petitioner attended the interview. He later sought the details of the marks obtained. A reply was furnished stating that the petitioner had been placed in the third rank, as he had obtained 65 marks. The petitioner belonged to Other Backward Community. There were two other candidates, who also belonged to the same community, who had obtained higher marks / 70 and 66 while the petitioner had obtained 65 marks in the interview. The candidate who obtained the second rank / 66 marks, Narendra Kumar Biswal was junior to the petitioner in Cordite Factory at Aruvankadu.

4.The petitioner sent a representation dated 23.12.2013 stating that Narendra Kumar Biswal had produced a false Experience Certificate and that his application should not have been considered and that he should not have been recommended for the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Gr-II (Explosives) in CFSL.

5.The respondents, however, did not take any action. This forced the petitioner to file O.A.No.175 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, seeking a direction to consider him for appointment and to remove Narendra Kumar Biswal.

6.The petitioner received a reply from the respondents that the 1^st respondent, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, had issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2015 to Narendra Kumar Biswal seeking explanation as to why his candidature should not be cancelled. A reply was issued by him on 15.09.2016 stating that he had been selected as SSO G-II (Explosives) in SQAE (ME) and that he was therefore not willing to join as Senior Scientific Officer, Gr-II (Explosives) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory. When O.A.No.175 of 2014 was taken up for hearing, the above fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. By order dated 07.11.2016, the Tribunal disposed the Original Application granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Union Public Service Commissioner by giving a representation and further directed that such representation should be examined and disposed of.

7.The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 26.11.2016 to the respondents seeking appointment as Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II (Explosives). The 2^nd respondent / Union Public Service Commission by an order dated 02.01.2017 refused to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that the reserve list would be valid only f