Hoshiyar Singh Ghanghas And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
1998 Latest Caselaw 1012 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

1. These petitions involve a common question as to validity of multiple applications made by the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise, Income-tax etc. 1996. An advertisement appeared in the Employment News regarding the 1996 examination for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Income-tax etc. in November/December, 1995. The petitioners made applications in response to the said advertisement. It is common case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions except Civil Writ Petition No. 3350/ 97, that the petitioners made multiple applications because the examination was to be held throughout the country and for this purpose the country was divided into various zones. According to the case of the petitioners the examination was to be conducted zone-wise and, therefore, they were entitled to apply in "each zone. The prospects of employment in each zone were different. The result of the examination was to be prepared on an all-India basis. It was to depend on vacancies available at the relevant time in each zone. The petitioners justified multiple applications on the ground that this enabled them to take the examination in the particular zone where they could consider best prospects for them to get recruitment depending on the number of vacancies. Making multiple applications gave them the option to select the zone where they would like to take the examination.

2. On behalf of respondents it is submitted that a candidate could take only one examination. He could select any one of zones for this purpose. The advantage of multiple application was only that at the final stage just before the examination, the number of vacancies available in each zone would become known and a candidate could decide the zone in which he would consider his prospects for getting employment as best. Though each petitioner had taken the examination on at one centre only, his/her candidature was cancelled by the respondents on the ground of multiple applications having been made for purpose of appearing in the examination. The petitioners challenged the decision of the respondents in cancelling their candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, rejected the challenge. The petitioners have now challenged the decision of the Tribunal in the present batch of writ petitions.

3. During the course of hearing of the petitions, it has been brought to our notice that the Supreme Court has vide its judgment dated 9th December, 1996 in Radhey Shyam Singh and Ors. v. Union of India struck down the Scheme of holding the examination in question in the manner in which the respondents used to hold i t. For the future directions have been issued to hold the same On all-India basis. It is admitted that the directions contained in the said judgment are prospective and do not upset the 1996 examination.

4. Mr. Madan Lokur, the learned Addl. Solicitor General relies on the term of the Scheme of examination as well as the instructions to the candidates contained in the application form for the examination to justify the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners with multiple applications. It would be appropriate to reproduce certain relevant portions of the Scheme:

Clause 10. A candidate who is or has been declared by the Commission to be guilty of :

 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 

(v)    making statements which are incorrect or false or suppressing material information; or
 

(vi)   resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his candidature for the examination; or
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 

(xiii) attempting to commit or as the case may be, abetting the Commission of all or any of the acts specified in the foregoing clauses.
   

(a)    to be disqualified by the Commission from the examination for which he is a candidate, or
 

(b)   to be debarred either permanently or for a specified period:
   

(i)    b) the Commission from any examination or selection held by them;
 

(ii)   by the Central Government from any employment under them, and 
 

(c)    to disciplinary action under appropriate rules, if he is already in service under Government. 
 

13.  CENTRE OF EXAMINATION AND ADDRESS TO WHICH APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE SENT:

The candidate must select only one Centre out of the Centres mentioned in column 1 of the table below. No change in centre shall be allowed. A candidate must submit his application only to the address mentioned in column 3 against the centre selected by him.

14. SINGLE APPLICATION.

A candidate should send only one application and pay fee only once whether he wants to complete for one or more than one category of post(s).

 

20. HOW TO APPLY
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 

III. A CANDIDATE SHOULD SUBMIT ONE APPLICATION ONLY. MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS WILL BE REJECTED SUMMARILY.
 

At this stage, we would like to reproduce the instructions contained on the application form which the candidates are required to fill for the examination :
   

"IV. AN APPLICATION WILL' BE SUMMARILY REJECTED AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR NOT CONFORMING TO THE OFFICIAL FORMAT/HAVING INCOMPLETE INFORMATION/ WRONG INFORMATION/MIS-REPRESENTATION OF FACTS/LEFT UNSIGNED/ SUBMITTED WITHOUT FEE WHERE DUE/WITHOUT A SIGNED PHOTOGRAPH PASTED AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE/NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ATTESTED /CERTIFIED COPIES OF CERTIFICATES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, AGE AND CATEGORY (SC/ST/EX-S/OH/OBC), DEPARTMENTAL CERTIFICATE OR FOR SUBMITTING MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION.

 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 xxx            xxx             xxx
 

DECLARATION
 

I hereby declare that all the statements made in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that in the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before or after the examination, my candidature/appointment is liable to be cancelled-

I have not submitted any other application for this Recruitment. I am aware that if I contravene this Rule, my application will be rejected by the Commission summarily.

I have read the provisions in the Notice of this Recruitment carefully and I hereby undertake to abide by them.

I further declare that I fulfill all the conditions of eligibility regarding age limits, educational qualifications, departmental status, etc. prescribed for admission to the examination. I have enclosed attested copies of certificates in support of my claim for educational qualifications, age, category (SC/ST/OBC/EX-s/ PH(OH), age relaxation and departmental status.

I also declare that I have never been convicted by any Court of Law.

5. A perusal of the above conditions of the examination shows that it has been made clear to the candidates more than once that they cannot make multiple applications. The candidates are required to give a declaration as contained in the application form that they have not submitted any other application for that particular recruitment. The fact that the candidates are required to select only one centre out of the centres mentioned in the Scheme shows that the candidates cannot make applications at more than one centre. The petitioners may have some justification for making multiple applications but the examination for the recruitment in question was being conducted on a given terms and conditions and the petitioners could not justify deviation from the same on the plea of improvement or better prospects. It is a separate matter that the Supreme Court ultimately considered that the examination should be conducted on all-India basis and the zone basis on which the examination was being conducted was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. So far as the recruitment in question is concerned, the Supreme Court did not upset it and, therefore, whatever was the Scheme under which the said recruitment was being conducted would prevail. The Scheme as a whole, specially the provisions referred to hereinabove leave no scope for multiple applications. The Scheme specifically debars the same.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Scheme is zone-wise and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to apply in each zone. This contention cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in the Scheme to which reference has already been made hereinabove. These provisions make it clear beyond any doubt that no candidate can make more than one application. Even the option about zone having been exercised once is final and transfer from zone to another is not permissible.

7. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the challenge to the cancellation of candidature of the petitioners on the ground of having made multiple applications. No interference is called for in the decision of the Tribunal which is under challenge. These petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

C.W. 3550/97.

8. In this petition, the case of the petitioners is that they did not make multiple applications. However, the Tribunal on the basis of perusal of the original record noted in its impugned judgment that it is a case of multiple applications. The Tribunal has observed:

"We have gone through the file and we are satisfied that in spite of attempts to camouflage, sufficient evidence exist in the file to show that the applicants have made multiple applications. The names are the same, the dates of birth are the same and the certificates enclosed are also the same. The only difference in sending the applications is of photographs. Photographs looks like one recent and the other very old one. But on our own perusal we were convinced that the applicants had made multiple applications."

9. No case is made out for interference with the aforesaid finding of fact by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to make out a case as if some other person made the second application on behalf of both the petitioners in order to get them disqualified. This argument is too far fetched. Firstly, all the particulars contained in the second application are same as given in the original application which the petitioners are owning. Secondly, who else will be interested in getting the petitioners disqualified? Thirdly, how would a stranger know as to in which zone the petitioners had applied so that he may make the application purported to be on their behalf in other zones? We find no merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for petitioners. This petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.