HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20 / 2018

1.

Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of

Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad

Marg, New Delhi.

2.

The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur (Raj).

3.

The Asst. Director General (DE), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi.

4.

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chittorgarh Division,

Chittorgarh- 312001 (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

Mahendra Saini S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste

Saini, R/o AA-14, Netaji Subhash Nagar, Hari Marg Tonk Road,

Jaipur.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Bohra

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

Order

11/01/2018

1.

Appointments to the post of Postal Assistant and Sorting

Assistant in different circles of the Postal Department was

outsourced to M/s CMC Ltd on a turnkey basis. The examination

conducted came under a cloud in 5 circles namely: Uttrakhand,

Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Gujarat. The department

cancelled the entire selection.

2.

Litigation ensued. The issue has since attained finality before

the Supreme Court and the decision is dated 23.07.2017 in CA

No.10513/2016 and connected Civil Appeals.

(2 of 2)

[CW-20/2018]

3.

The respondents took the view that so widespread were the

malpractices that the entire selection process in the 5 circles

needed to be cancelled. The Supreme Court has opined that

keeping in view report of the Vigilance Committee the entire

examination was not necessarily vitiated. Some persons were

suspected of having resorted to malpractices. The Supreme Court

has held that action as per the law i.e after issuing formal show

cause notice to those who were suspected of having resorted to

malpractices be taken. As regards others, the Court has held that

those who had undergone training courses would be reinstated

with all consequential benefits and 50% backwages.

4.

As regards the respondent, he was offered appointment and

joined pursuant thereto. He completed the training when his

services were terminated on account of the decision taken to scrap

the entire recruitment. The respondent is thus entitled to the

benefit of the direction issued by the Supreme Court. The

respondent would be reinstated with 50% backwages and should

he be a candidate against whom an allegation of malpractice is

alleged, as directed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners would

be entitled to take action as per the decision of the Supreme

Court.

5.

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

Mohit Tak