Bombay High Court
Rahul vs The Union Of India on 19 October, 2010
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4978 OF 2009.
Rahul s/o Vijay Haul,
age 24 years, occup. Nil,
R/of Kond,Taluka and Dist.
Osmanabad. Petitioner
versus
1. The Union of India.
2. The Additional Deputy Inspector
General, Central Reserve Police
Force, Group Centre, CRPF,
Talegaon Dabhade,post Vishnupuri,
Taluka Maval, District : Pune.
3. The Presiding Officer, Central
Reserve Police Force Recruitment
Board, Centre at Ahmednagar,
Ahmednagar. Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pawan Pawar, Advocate, holding for Shri
Vasant S, Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General
for Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: S.B.Deshmukh and Shrihari P.Davare, JJ.
Judgment reserved on : 11th October, 2010
Judgment pronounced on : 19th October, 2010
JUDGMENT (Per: Shrihari P. Davare, J.)
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is
taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
02. The petitioner has filed the present petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby
prayed for writ of mandamus or any other writ or directions
to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct the medical test of
the petitioner and to issue appointment order to him for the
post of Constable (G.D.) in pursuance of the advertisement
dated 12.1.2007 issued by Respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1
herein is the Union of India and Respondent No.2 is the
Additional Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police
Force, Group
Centre, CRPF, Talegaon
Vishnupuri, Taluka Maval, District Pune, whereas Respondent
Dabhade, post
No.3 is the Presiding Officer, Central Reserve Police Force,
Recruitment Board, Centre at Ahmadnagar, Ahmednagar.
03. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2007
issued by Respondent No.2 for recruitment to the posts of
Constable, G.D., petitioner herein applied therefor, from
the open category. Accordingly, physical test of the
petitioner was conducted on 19.3.2008 on Police Parade
Ground, Ahmednagar, with Respondent No.3 and the petitioner
successfully passed therein. Thereafter, petitioner was
called for written test which was conducted on 2.4.2007 at
Ahmednagar Center, and the petitioner passed the said test
also. Accordingly, petitioner was called for oral interview
which was scheduled on 18.4.2007 at 8 a.m.with Respondent No.3.
04. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued letter dated
16.6.2007 (Exhibit F, page 18) to the petitioner, informing
that he passed in the oral interview and, therefore, was
called for medical test on 28.6.2007 at 8.30 a.m. at CRPF,
Talegaon Dabhade, post Vishnupuri, Taluka Maval, District
Pune. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is
stated in the said letter that he was to report for the
medical test at the time and date mentioned therein and
the respondents
that, in case he is declared fit by the medical authority,
would give appointment order to the
petitioner for the post of Constable (G.D.) on the same day.
Accordingly, petitioner reported at the place of Respondent
No. 2 for medical test on 28.6.2007, but at that time,
Respondent No.2 gave letter dated 21.6.2007 (Exhibit G,
page 19) to him and informed that the medical test scheduled
on 28.6.2007 is cancelled due to administrative reasons.
Thereafter, petitioner pursued the said matter with the
respondents and in response, the respondents, by letter
dated 11.1.2008, reiterated that the medical test scheduled
on 28.6.2007 has been cancelled permanently, on
administrative grounds.
05. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition, being
Writ Petition No.1716 of 2009 before this Court, but same
was withdrawn by him on 24.3.2009 with leave to approach the
concerned Tribunal. Thereafter, the present petitioner
filed Original Application No.245 of 2009 before the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, for the aforesaid
prayers. However, the said Original Application came to be
dismissed by the learned CAT by order dated 12.6.2009,
holding that, in view of Section 2(a) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, the said Tribunal had no jurisdiction
to entertain and try the said Original Application filed by
the petitioner
herein, since the Central
Force is the Armed Force of the Union of India. However, the
Reserve Police
CAT granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate forum. Accordingly, petitioner has filed the
present petition before this court for the prayers as set
out hereinabove.
06. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed affidavit-in-reply,
which has been sworn in by one Randeep Datta, presently
working as DIGP, Group Center, CRPF, Talegaon, Pune, and
thereby denied the averments and contentions made by the
petitioner in the present petition, unless admitted
specifically. The respondents have submitted that the
recruitment process was carried out in a very transparent
manner and no discrimination or favoritism was shown to
anybody. Accordingly, on the basis of marks obtained in the
written test, the petitioner was called for oral interview
and was kept on waiting list. It is also stated that the
appointment orders had been issued to the eligible
candidates, only on the basis of their merits. However,
since the petitioner was not on merit list, his name was not
considered for the post and, therefore, his name was kept on
the waiting list. It is further stated that no candidates,
including the petitioner, who were on the waiting list, had
been appointed to the post of CT/GD by GC CRPF, Pune.
07.
It is also stated in the said affidavit in reply
that, although the GC CRPF had, initially by letter dated
16.6.2007, informed the petitioner to remain present for
medical examination on 28.6.2007, but since all the
recruitment formalities were to be completed by 30.6.2007 as
per the schedule prescribed by the Deputy General, CRPF, and
hence, candidates, including the petitioner, who were placed
on the waiting list, had been informed by subsequent letter
dated 21.6.2007 that the second medical examination that
was to be held on 28.6.2007 was cancelled due to
administrative reasons. Accordingly, it is submitted by the
respondents that the present petition bears no substance and
same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same be
dismissed.
08. We have perused the contents of the petition, its
annexures, affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and
also considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, anxiously. At the outset, the main
attack of the petitioner was on the letter dated 16.6.2007
(Exh.F) issued by Respondent No.2 to the petitioner, wherein
it is mentioned:
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
(emphsis added)
09. On the basis of the said letter, learned Counsel
for the petitioner canvassed that the name of the petitioner
was in the select list and, therefore, he deserves to be
called for the medical test and consequently, he is required
to be appointed to the post of Constable, G.D. in pursuance
of the advertisement dated 12.1.2007, after declaring him
fit in the said medical test.
10. In the said context, learned counsel for the
respondents rightly pointed out that although the name of
the petitioner reflected in the select list, his name could
not figure in the merit list and, therefore, his case was
not considered for the aforesaid post and accordingly, his
name was kept in the waiting list.Learned Counsel for the
Respondents also invited our attention to the fact that as
per the schedule prescribed by the Deputy General, CRPF, all
the recruitment formalities were to be completed before
30.6.2007 and, therefore, all the candidates, who were on
the waiting list, including the petitioner, were informed by
letter dated 21.6.2007 that the second medical test
scheduled on 28.6.2007 was cancelled due to administrative
reasons. Learned Counsel for the respondents also pointed
out that since the petitioner did not stand in the order of
merit, he was not given appointment and his name was kept on
the waiting list and no candidates,including the petitioner,
who were on the waiting list, were appointed on the
aforesaid post.
11. Considering the rival submissions, it is amply
clear that although as per the letter dated 16.6.2007,
petitioner's name was included in the select list, it could
figure in the order of merits and, therefore, he was placed
on the waiting list and he could not be given appointment.
Moreover, his medical examination scheduled on 28.6.2007 was
also cancelled due to administrative reasons and due to
policy decision, as mentioned hereinabove and hence, no
interference therein is called for,in the writ jurisdiction.
12. Besides that, as pointed out by learned counsel
for Respondents, it is also materia to note further contents
of the letter dated 16.6.2007(Exh.F) which are to the effect
that:
ig -----------------------------
-----------------------------
Accordingly, the letter dated 16.6.2007 is required to be
read in its entirety and it could not be read in piece-meal
manner, and the later contents of the said letter clarify
the exact position that the said letter is not the guarantee
of selection and appointment of the candidate for the
aforesaid post.
13. In the circumstances, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to accept the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, whereas the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the respondents appear to be
logical and reasonable and hence, we are inclined to accept
the same. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
present petition bears no substance and same is devoid of
any merits and hence, no interference is warranted under the
extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, in the present matter.
14. In the result, present petition being sans
merits, stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances,
there shall be no order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged, accordingly.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)
pnd/wp4978.09
