Subodh Chandra Srivastava vs Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 24928 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178196
 

 
(Judgment reserved on 16.03.2023)
 
(Judgement delivered on 15.09.2023)
 

 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 72605 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Subodh Chandra Srivastava
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Ojha,A.K.Upadhyay,Gaurav Singh,J.K. Srivastava,Rakesh Pande
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,N.K.Mishra,R.K. Singh,S.C.
 

 
AND
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8601 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. Food And Public Distribution And Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.K. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,R.K. Singh,S.C.,S.K. Mishra
 

 
AND
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9565 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. Food And Public Distribution And Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.K. Srivastava,Ashish Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Devendra Kumar,Ishwar Patel,R.K. Singh,S.C.
 

 

 
AND
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22347 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Kesari
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay,Sriprakash Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Chandrajeet,Raj Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. All the above referred writ petitions involved identical question of Law and facts. The Writ Petition No. 72605 of 2011 is being treated as leading Writ Petition and the facts of said writ petition is being considered for deciding the controversy involved in all the petitions.

2. Case of the Petitioner

All the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.01.2011, as issued by the F.C.I. for several posts, including 13 posts for A.G.M. (Legal) which subsequently increased to 17 posts applied online through official website of F.C.I. "In the advertisement the qualification and experience as prescribed for the post of A.G.M. (Legal) are being quoted below:-

"i. Degree in Law from recognized university

ii. At least 5 years experience in legal" work in Central/State Government or a Public/Private Sector Undertaking or three years practice at Bar.

Practice at Bar: Apart from providing the certificate from the concerned Bar Council/Association, the candidate shall be required to certify with appropria evidence that she/he has represented in at least 5 matters in a year while practicing at the Bar."

3. In the written test held on 03.04.2011 the petitioners declared successful and called for interview scheduled to be held on 13.05.2011.

4. However, in the final result declared on 10.10.2011, the name of petitioner was not included amongst the selected candidates. Petitioner enquired about his result under R.T.I Act and the Chief Public Information Officer, through reply dated 13.10.2011, informed that the petitioner secured 83 marks out of 120.

5. Petitioner challenged the impugned actions of F.C.I. through the instant writ petition for quashing the selection made by the respondents in pursuance of advertisement dated 08.01.2011 mainly on the grounds that petitioner had submitted an affidavit, disclosing the reference of cases in which he had appeared as counsel in last three years.

6. Respondent's case

Respondent F.C.I. controverted the averments made in writ petition by way of counter affidavit and as per the advertisement dated 08.01.2011 for the post of A.G.M. (Legal) the eligibility for the post of A.G.M. (legal) are as under:-

"1. Degree in Law from a recognized university.

2. At least five years experience in legal work in Central/State Government or a Public/Private sector undertaking or three year practice at Bar.

3. Apart from providing the certificate from the concerned Bar Council/Associating the candidate shall be required to certify with appropriate evidence, that she/he has represent in at least 5 matters in a year while practising at Bar."

7. Respondent FC.I, came with a specific case that the petitioner did not qualify the eligibility criteria which has been consistently and uniformly applied in all the cases including the present case. The petitioner did not provide appropriate evidences that he has represented at least 5 matter in a year, while practising at the Bar and as such the petitioner had not fulfilled one of the prerequisite criteria. For perusal the contention made in para 9 of counter affidavit are reproduced hereunder:

"Para-9: That the para 10 of the writ petition is wholly misconceived, incorrect hence denied. It is humbly submitted that it has been specifically and clearly laid down in the Recruitment Advertisement. Under the column "General Information and instruction" that the 'Candidates should satisfy themselves that they fulfill the required qualification, experience, age etc, before applying for the post. In case it is found that the information furnished by a candidate is defective in any manner or has deliberately suppressed information, the candidature will be summarily rejected as and when it comes to the notice of the Management. The candidates are advised to satisfy themselves fully about the correctness of the information furnished, if found ineligible at any stage the candidature would be rejected.' Thus the onus of proving one's eligibility vested entirely on the candidate.

The selection process for post of AGM (Legal) comprising of a written test and interview was strictly conducted in accordance with the said conditions which was released in advertisement for the post dated 8 to 14th January, 2011 and has been followed by the Corporation for recruitments to post of AGM (Legal) held in 2011. It is specifically emphasized that the provisions of the advertisement/eligibility criteria have been consistently and uniformly applied and any discrepancies noticed at any stage and at any point in time of the recruitment process were rectified to ensure acceptance/rejection of candidature in accordance with prescribed provisions/criteria

It has also been specifically mentioned in the Call letter for Personal Interview "Please note that your candidature for the above post is provisional. If, at any stage, it is found that you do not fulfill any of the conditions laid down in the advertisement for the examination your candidature will be cancelled and no appeal against any such cancellation will be entertained at any stage."

The Petitioner Shri Subodh Chandra Srivastava who had applied for the post of Assistant General Manager (Legal) (Post Code:07) did not provide appropriate evidences that he has represented in at least 5 matters in a year while practicing at the Bar and hence he had not completed one of the prerequisite requirement which makes him ineligible for the applied post."

8. Respondent F.C.I. through supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.09.2013, came with a case that vide refrence order No. 1- 5/2010-RPI/Pt... dated 18.07.2011 the high level committee was asked to verify the correctness of the experience submitted by all successful candidates for the post of A.G.M. (Legal). The Committee examined the documents furnished by the candidates in support of their claim for fulfilling the eligibility criteria with respect to the prescribed experience. The Committee worked out on following criteria for examining the appropriate and not appropriate evidences:-

"The Committee examined the eligibility criteria advertised for the post of AGM (Legal) so as to ascertain the appropriateness of the experience as well as the evidence in support of experience of the candidate in the merit list. As per the advertisement the eligibility criteria of AGM (Legal) are as follows:

i) Degree in Law from a recognized university, (ii) At least 5 years experience in legal work in Central/State Govt. or a Public/Private Sector Undertaking or 3 years practice at Bar.

Practice at Bar:- Apart from providing the certificate from the concerned Bar Council/Association, the candidate shall be required to certify with appropriate evidence that she/he has represented in at least 5 matters in a year while practicing at the Bar.

The Committee observed that 37 dossiers available against the same number of candidates in the merit list. The Committee examined the documents furnished by the candidates in support of their claim of fulfilling the eligibility criteria with respect to the prescribed experience. "The following modus operandi has been worked out:

1. In case of Corporate Sector, Experience Certificate enclosed by the candidates is to be examined to establish whether the experience acquired is related to legal work.

2. In case of practice at Bar, the duration of three years is to be checked up from the date of enrolment with the concerned Bar Council.

3. In support of representing the required number of cases, the furnished documents are to be examined with regard to appropriateness.

4. Regarding the number of cases represented, various types of documents have been furnished by the candidates e.g, Cause list from the website, copies of Order Sheets, certificate from Judge, certificate from Bar Council/Bar Association, Affidavit attested by Notary public, certificate from Senior Advocate etc.

The Committee examined the various types of documents and decided that:

a) Self-certificate whether attested or not by the Notary Public without supporting documents cannot be taken as appropriate evidence in representing five matters in each year.

b) Bar Council/Bar Association cannot certify representing matters before the Courts as they do not maintain any supporting records and such certificates specifying the details of the cases represented by the candidates issued by Bar Council/Assocation cannot be accepted.

c) Certificate from senior Advocate cannot be taken as appropriate evidence.

d) The cause list, copies of order sheets and other such evidences obtained from the Court, either physically or through website may be accepted as valid appropriate evidence.

The observation of High Level Committee constituted for examining evidence enclosed by the candidates in respect of present petitioner and other successful/unsuccessful candidates are summarized in the table below:

S. No.

Name & Application No.

Experience

Certificate attached in support of the experience

Remarks

Sh. Satendra Pratap Rao-102519

Worked for 5 year (from Oct. 2001 to Nov. 2006)

The Basti sugar Mills Company Ltd. Certificate of Experience in Private Sector available for the requisite period

Difference in address.

Overwriting as pointed out by the Division, in the Certificate.

May be re-verified.

Sh. Manoj Kumar Srivastava-106333

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from President, District Bar Association, Allahabad and Sworn Affidavit

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Yadav Pran Das 100130

Practicing at Bar

Sworn Affidavit

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Mahendra Pratap Kesari-110096

Practicing at Bar

Self Declaration

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Rajeev Kumar

108962

Practicing at Bar

Sworn Affidavit

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Anami Saran

108414

Practicing at Bar

Sworn Affidavit

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Raghvendra Pratap Singh- 107454

Practicing at Bar

Sworn Affidavit and Self Declaration

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Vidyapati Tripathi 106407

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from Sr. Advocate does not disclose that he represented in the matters mentioned therein

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Nirb Bhai Narain Pandey- 107826

Practicing at Bar

Self Declaration

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav-110169

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from an Advocate

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Suresh Kumar Dasari-103393

Practicing at Bar

Notary certified

Self-

declaration

Not Appropriate Evidence

Sh. Binod Kumar

Rajak-101203

Working from 6 year & 9 months

United India

Insurance

Company Ltd.

Working in the capacity of Administrative officer without any reference of Legal work. Not relevant.

13.

Sh. Kishore Kumar

Das

Practicing at Bar

Self

Declaration

Not Appropriate

Evidence

14.

Sh. Akhilesh Kumar

Sharma- 109754

Worked as Auditor & Sr. Auditor from 8 years & 8 months

The Principal Controller of Defense

Accounts

(Pensions)

Experience obtained in the Capacity of Auditor, not as a Legal Officer, Hence not relevant.

15.

Sh. Prashant Kumar

103479

Working from 5 years

National Metallurgical Laboratory,

Jamshedpur

Working at the Level of AG-1 and not specifically as Legal Officer, Hence, not relevant.

16.

Ms. Rashmi Bhimrao

Ingle- 110870

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from secretary/President, Achalpur Bar Association, Achalpur

Not Appropriate

Evidence

Sh. Kunwar

Nooruddin Khan-

110244

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from General Secretary// President, The Banaras Bar Association, Varanasi as the Senior Advocate

Not Appropriate

Evidnece

18.

Sh. Rajesh Meena

108008

Practicing at Bar

Sworn Affidavit

Not Appropriate

Evidence

19.

Sh. Sharad Kumar Yadav- 105130

Practicing at Bar

Self declaration

Not Appropriate

Evidence

20.

Sh. Sadashiv Chidanand Kamble-

105872

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from President, Advocates Bar Association, Khanapur,Belgaum

Not Appropriate

Evidence

21.

Sh. Manish Mishra-

108697

Practicing at Bar

Case list query from the Website of Patna High Court

Complied

Sh. Saibewar Venkat Ramana- 103733

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from President, Bar Association, Adilabad

Not Appropriate

Evidence

23.

Sh. Jayashankar

Pandey- 109300

Practicing at Bar

Copies of order sheets and case status queries generated from High Court website

Complied

24.

Sh. Yarra Kishore

Kumar - 108955

Practicing at Bar

Self

Declaration

Not Appropriate

Evidence

25.

Sh. Narendra Kumar

106257

Working from 8 years as Sr. Non Commissioned Offcer, Legal

Cell

Certified issued by Indian Air Force as Non-Commissioned Officer in charge of Legal Affairs

Complied

26.

Sh. Abhinav Anand-

107440

Working from 5 years as Asstt. Manager, Legal

Certificate issued by STS Pvt. Ltd. , Azadpur, New Delhi

Complied

27.

Sh. Subodh Chandra

Srivastava 108756

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from president, District Bar Association, Allahabad and sworn affidavit

Not Appropriate

Evidence

28.

Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta- 110757

Practicing at Bar

Copies of order sheets and attested information sheet from Judge-In- Charge

Complied

29.

Ms. Devarapalli

Srujana- 109153

Practicing at Bar

Certificate from the Senior Advocate

Not Appropriate evidence.

30.

Sh. R. Anand Kumar

105419

Working from 5 years & 6 months as Administrative Officer (Legal)

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Complied

Sh. Arun Kumar

106205

Working from 6 years & 2 months as Law Assistant/ Chief Law Assistant

South East Central Railway, Indian Railways

Complied

Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Bharti- 106518

Practicing at Bar

Copies of relevant Order Sheets

Some Attached copies of Order sheets bear the name of Sanjay Bharti, whereas all other documents bear name as Sanjay Kumar Bharti. Position may be re-verified.

33.

Sh. Shivayogi R-

101164

Practicing at Bar

Copies of relevant Order sheets and list of cases attested by Notary Public.

Attached documents do not indicate representation in required number of matter/cases. Not Appropriate Evidence.

34.

Sh. Sachindra Pal

Singh- 109180

Working from 5 years & 7 months as Law Assistant/ Chief Law Assistant

West Central Railway, Indian Railways

Complied

Sh. Raj Prakash

Negi- 101332

Working from 5 Years & 9 months

Union Bank of Indian and Canara Bank

Complied

Sh. Chanchal Kumar Trivedy- 109287

Practicing at Bar

Copies of relevant portion of Cause List Published by High Court

Complied

Sh. Davander

Prasad- 101866

Worked for 10 years as Sr. Non commissioned Officer, Legal Cell and working from 2 years & 4 months as Sr. Translator

Indian Air Force and Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India

Complied

As per the above exercise, the Committee found present petitioner at 51. No. 27 has not enclosed appropriate evidence . Hence the Committee has not recommended his name for final selection. It is further humbly mentioned that present petitioner is presenting half-truth before this Hon'ble court."

9. Petitioner through the rejoinder affidavit Submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Board for the document verification and interview and thus he completed the entire. requirement as per advertisement such as submission of attested/self attested copies of qualification experience at Bar and also produced the original certificate as well as the details of the cases duly represented by the Petitioner. In support of the said contention petitioner filed the questioner issued by learned Court below.

10. However, the respondents F.C.I. through another supplementary affidavit brought on record the verdict given by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in respect of same advertisement dated 08.01.2011 vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2013 passed in L.P.A. 664 of 2013 (Gainilung Parmer Vs. F.C.I.) as well as the order dated 29.08.2014, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 17789 of 2014 (Gainilung Parmer Vs. F.C.I.)

11. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties it appears that all the petitioners through different writ petitions challenged the advertisement dated 08.01.2011, the post of A.G.M. (Legal) in different categories and as per the respondent F.C.I. petitioners were not selected because they did not meet the prerequisite criteria as mentioned in the advertisement dated 08.01.2011.

12. The High Level Committee examined the correctness of experience as submitted by all the successful candidates for the post of A.G.M. (Legal). The Committee decided that cause list copies of order sheets and other such evidences obtained from the court, either physically or through website may be accepted as valid appropriate evidence. The petitioner in Writ Petition also submitted the questionier about the filing their Vakalatnama in different cases, but failed to file the cause list, copies of order sheet or other such evidences which certify that the petitioner has represented in at least 5 matter in a year while practicing at Bar.

13. Nothing could be pointed out on behalf of the petitioner by way of any documentary proof that in any single year the petitioner appeared in 5 matters. No such document has been filed before this Court, although filing before this Court may be no use because the said requisite qualification had to be complied with by furnishing the necessary documents before F.CI at the relevant time during the selection process.

14. Similarly situated matter

One of the candidate who also cleared the written test and called for interview placed at Sl. No. 7 namely Gainilung Parmei seeks appointment on the post of A.G.M. (Legal) in pursuance of advertisement dated 08.01.2011 by way of filing Writ Petition (C) No. 2537 of 2012 (Gainilung Parmei vs. FCI and others), which was dismissed by Single Judge of Delhi High Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.07.2013. In intra court appeal the Division Bench of Delhi High Court after gone through the relevant records as produced by F.C.I. at the time of hearing, dismissed the intra court appeal by affirming the order dated 15.7.2013 of Single Judge of Delhi High Court vide its order dated 12.11.2013. The operative part of the intra court appeal are as under:

"However, we find that this ground was not taken in the writ petition nor was it even urged at the time of hearing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Though counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in fact this grievance was raised before the learned Single Judge but since it does not find mention in the impugned order we are not inclined to accept this argument, as we find no reason that this grievance would not have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge it had actually been raised before him.

Learned counsel for the appellant cited three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of "Dolly Chandra vs. Chairman JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779, A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Anr Vs. B. Sarat Chandra and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 669 and Charles K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew and Ors.(1980) 2 SCC 752 and one judgment dated 16.05.2011 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.C(C) No. 2889/2011. However, we find that these judgments do not advance the case of the appellant since in the present case the admitted position is that the appellant had not furnished the requisite proof of his appearances in the court matters which was one of the essential requirements for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Legal). Appellant having been permitted to take written exam and his being interviewed will also not make any difference since the appellant himself is not disputing now, contrary to the stand taken in the writ petition that he had furnished entire proof, that he had not furnished full proof of experience at bar and also that it was made clear to him at all stages including in the interview call letter that if anything prescribed in the advertisement would be found missing at any stage his candidature would be cancelled."

15. Being aggrieved with the above mentioned judgment dated 12.11.2013 the SLP(C) preferred by the candidate was also dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on dated 29.8.2014.

16. Advertisement challenged before this Court was of year 2011, the selection process has already been completed way back in year 2011 itself.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited one judgment 2008(7) SCC 11 (Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court Delhi), which deals with the changing rules of the game during selection process or when it is over, however the ratio of aforesaid judgment do not advance the case of the petitioner because the advertisement clearly provided that the candidate should have produced the appropriate evidence to demonstrate that he had represented at least five matters in a year while practicing the Bar, therefore, merely because subsequently criteria was laid to ascertain whether appropriate evidence has been furnished or not the selection could not be questioned as there is no change in eligibility qualification.

18. This Court on earlier occasion vide its order and direction dated 21.08.2018 directed DGM (RPI) FCI, New Delhi to notify a date and calling upon the individuals to submit appropriate evidence of the nature that was considered by the select Committee. The said order dated 21.08.2018 challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5760-5764 of 2021 (Chairman FCI & Ors. Vs. Manoj Srivastava & Ors.) and Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 17.09.2021 disposed of the said appeal with following observations:-

"Our attention was invited by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate to the challenge raised in respect of the very same advertisement in the High Court of Delhi where the challenge raised by the concerned candidates was rejected.

We need not go into the merits inasmuch as the matters are still pending consideration before the High Court. It must however be observed that the directions issued by the High Court at the interim stage were not called for.

Since this Court has already stayed the operation of the directions issued by the High Court, at the notice stage, while disposing of these appeals, we direct that the interim order passed by this Court staying the operation of the directions issued by the High Court, shall be the interim order during the pendency of challenge before the High Court."

19. However for the foregoing reasons this Court declined to interfere in the controversy involved in the bunch of writ petitions.

20. Writ petitions lack merits and are accordingly dismissed.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 15.9.2023

Rakesh