Uday Shankar Sinha vs Shipping Corporation Of India & ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 625 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Petitioner, a young aspirant for appointment as Trainee Navigating Officers Cadets (hereafter referred to as "TNOC's") had to rush to this Court by way of present writ petition because even after passing written test and appearing in the interview, the results were not declared and were withheld. In the writ petition, it is inter alia, alleged that this was because of the postponement of the interviews due to violent incidents at the time of interview at Mumbai, one of the five centres. This aspect is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit wherein respondents have mentioned that selection of candidates for the appointment of TNOCs was cancelled due to the reasons and circumstances beyond the control of respondent No.1 inasmuch as there were violent incidents and agitation by an organisation of local youth under the banner of Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was further turn in the events inasmuch as respondent No.1 took the decision to scrap the entire panel/selection process on the ground that there were reasons to believe that in many cases, instead of actual candidates some other persons appeared in their place in the written test and 3 candidates even admitted so at the time of interview. Thus according to the respondent No.1, as it was found that there were defects in the selection procedure adopted and malpractices were noticed, selection process had to be scrapped. Petitioner howver denies this to be the reason for cancelling selection process and maintains that it is due to pressures put by ocal organisation at Mumbai.

To appreciate the controversy, let us scan through the basic facts in the first instance.

2. Respondent No. 1 namely Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. is a Government of India enterprises which comes under the administrative control of Ministry of Surface Transport. There is no dispute that it is instrumentality and/or agency under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Re-

spondent No.1 published an advertisement on 4/10.04.1998 in the Employment News inviting applications for appointment to the post of TNOCs under Merchant Marine Education and Research Trusts Scheme from unmarried male candidates. The minimum qualification and age prescribed therein was for 10+2 candidates, age not exceeding 20 years as on 01.02.1999 was prescribed and for graduate (B.Sc.) age of 22 years as on 01.02.1999 was prescribed. The selection for the said post was on the basis of written test and interview. The written tests in academic subjects, English language, General Knowledge cum aptitude was to be held on 24.05.1998 at the following five centres namely, New Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai and Guwahati. As per the scheme of selection the successful candidates in the written examination were to be called for interview on the above five centres and thereafter there was a provision of medical and Eye-sight examination at Mumbai.

Thereafter the selected candidates were required to undergo 4 1/2 months pre-sea training course at the Govt. approved training institutions at Mumbai under Merchant Marine Education and Research Trust (MMERT) scheme starting from August 1998 or February 1999. The petitioner being qualified for the said post made an application for appointment to the post of "TNOC's. The respondent No.1 issued registration No.102998 to him and also gave him roll No.330130 and called him for written test as per schedule on 24.05.1998 at Cambridge Foundation School, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. The petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and therefore called for interview which was scheduled for 24.7.1998. The petitioner appeared for interview on 24.7.1998 as scheduled. The interview at New Delhi was held from 22.7.1998 to 24.7.1998, at Calcutta, it was held from 13.7.1998 to 18.7.1998 when various candidates were called for interview and the interviews were held as scheduled. Another centre for interview was at Mumbai and there also the dates of interview were fixed in July 1998. However, no interview could take place due to the violence created by the local candidates of Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti who disrupted the said interviews. The demand of the aforesaid group was that the post of "TNOC's should be filled up from the candidates belonging to their group calling themselves as "sons of soil". The interviews were postponed but no further dates could be fixed for holding interview at Mumbai centre. For this reason, results of selection process could not be declared. In fact as per the advertisement for the aforesaid post of "TNOC's, training programme for successful candidates was to commence from August 1998 or February 1999. No such programme could commence for want of publication of results and appointment of successful candidates. petitioner sent representations includ-ing on 16.3.1999. When it did not yield any results, petitioner filed the present writ petition in which he sought the prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to hold interview at New Delhi expeditiously and to declare results of selection to the post of "TNOC's and if it was not possible to hold interview at Mumbai then direction should be given to hold interview at other centres like New Delhi or Calcutta and thereafter results be declared.

3. On notice being issued in the writ petition, respondent No.1 appeared and filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, preliminary submission is made that petitioner had no clear and unequivocal right to get the relief asked for as he had no right to the post. He had no acquired any vested right which can be enforced. Matter was within the absolute subjective discretion of the respondents, and therefore, writ of mandamus did not lie. It was also stated that matter was under active consideration of respondent No.1 and no final decision had been taken yet as to whether to hold interview afresh or to scrap the whole selection and hold fresh examination. On merits, it is mentioned that selection of the candidates for appointment of "TNOC's was cancelled due to reasons and circumstances beyond the control of respondent No.1. The interview was scheduled to be held on 8.7.1998 at Mumbai. The same was cancelled because of the agitation held by the Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti (Organisation of Local youths). The agitation took a violent turn and for the safety of the candidates and the staff the interview had to be cancelled. After this incidence the matter was discussed by the officers of the respondent No.1 Some shortcomings, defects and lacunae were noticed. It was then decided that improvements should be made in the present system of recruitment. The corrective method has been decided. New system of recruitment has been evolved which the respondent No.1 is going to implement shortly.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 13.9.1999, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the matter was pending before its Board of Directors for consideration and final decision was expected within 2-3 weeks. Thereafter on 17.11.1999, it was informed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 had taken the decision to scrap the entire selection process at all the centres. It was directed to file an affidavit stating the reasons for this decision. Additional affidavit dated 15.1.2000 was accordingly filed in which it is pointed out that although due to the agitation by the local youth organisaion, interview was postponed, it was not cancelled because of the aforesaid agitation. The reason for cancellation, in the said affidavit, is stated in the following words:

"The recruitment of Trainee Navigation Officers("TNOC's) is done by the respondent No.1 twice a year through all India written exam nation which at present time was conducted by Indian Institute of Psyichometry, Calcutta on behalf of the respondent No.1. The centres of this examination were Mumbai, Calcutta, Guwahati, Chennai and Delhi. The institute after conducting the written ests sent the merit list of the candidates qualified for interview to the respondent No.1' head office. In the course of interview of the short listed candidates it was noticed that many candidates performance was very poor as compared to their performance in the written examination and when those candidateswere asked as to how they secured such good marks in written test, 3 candidates only admitted that they had arranged for somebody to appear in their place in the written test. It was also noticed that though the candidates performance in the writ ten test was exceedingly well - candidates securing over 70% marks which is very difficult but their performance in the inter view was very poor and not commensurate with their performance in the written test. The written test which is an intelligence based est and many candidates appeared to be of impersonation."

Petitioner has filed reply affidavit, contending that stand taken by e respondent No.1 is false, fabricated and afterthought.

5. The facts mentioned above would show that petitioner had appeared in the written test which he qualified and thereafter he also appeared in the interview. Result of the interview could not be declared as selection process at Mumbai centre could not be completed inasmuch as in Mumbai interviews could not be held due to the violence created by candidates of Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti who disrupted the said interviews. Interviews had to be postponed but no fresh dates of interviews for candidates who had to appear for the same in Mumbai centre were fixed thereafter. This has creat-

ed belief in the petitioner that it is because of the agitation of those 'sons of soils' that the whole selection process is put to nought. It hardly needs any emphasis that if this is the real reason for scuttling the whole selection process, it would be a shocking state of affairs. Respondent No.1 is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is a Government of India enterprise which comes under Ministry of Surface & Transport, Central Government. If such elements are able to have their field day and they can disrupt the selection process by demanding that local persons only be given preference for employment with respondent No.1, it would be a sad day in free democratic country governed by rule of law and the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India which, inter alia, include Articles 14 & 16. These provisions ensure that there would be equality of law, each person is to be treated equally in the eyes of law and there would not be any discrimination in the matter of employment on the ground of sex, religion, caste, creed etc. It is the bounden duty of the state to ensure law and order and also to prevent such occurrences. One organisation, like Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti, in the instant case, cannot be permitted to dictate its terms as to how the appointments are to be made by the respondents. Therefore if the selection process is scrapped due to this reason, this Court would not have even slightest hesitation in quashing such an action of the respondents. However whether the selection process is cancelled due to the pressure of Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti or due to the reason explained in the addtional affidavit namely bungling in the exami-nation, of the nature noticed above, is a matter which is to be decided.

6. As already observed above, as per the respondents, in the course of interview of shortlisted candidates it was noticed that many candidates performance was very poor as compared to their performance in the written examination and when those candidates were asked as to how they secured such good marks in written test, 3 candidates even admitted that they had arranged for somebody else to appear in their place in the written test. Respondents further noticed that though the candidates performance in the written test was exceedingly well - candidates securing over 70% marks which is very difficult but their performance in the interview was very poor and not commensurate with their performance in the written test. Many cases appeared to be on impersonation. This compelled the respondents to scrap the entire selection process.

7. Alongwith the affidavit, respondent No.1 has also filed copy of letter dated 16th December, 1999 written by its Calcutta Regional Office to the Head Office bringing out irregularities in recruitment of "TNOC's and it is, inter alia, stated that in course of interview of the candidates, it was noticed in a few cases that the candidates performed very poorly in interview though the marks obtained by the candidate in written examination were often outstanding. On interrogation it was revealed that in some specific cases the person who has come in the interview did no appear in the written examination and somebody else was hired to appear in his place. No marks were awarded to these candidates and the word "fraud" was written against these names in the interview sheet. Doubts were raised in some of the other cases also where candidates securing extremely well (obtaining 70% and above) in the written test but could not answer, when asked on the same topic in the interview, though in these cases the candidates did not admit of any impersonation. Another letter dated 16.12.1999 written by Capt. V. Asthana, DGM, Vigilance and letter dated 15.12.1999 written by A.V.Badle, AGM(FP) of Vigilance Department containing the same version have also been filed alongwith this counter affidavit. Respondent No.1 has also enclosed copy of letter dated 29.10.1998 written by respondent No.1 to the Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Surface Transport in which incident of disruption by Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti has been narrated and it is also mentioned that the said Samiti is demanding the respondent No.1 should reserve 90 per cent of the job opportunities for local youth but respondent No.1 has not acceded to their request since this may have repercussions in the other locations where it has its regional offices. This letter is apparently enclosed to show that the respondent No.1 had not succumbed to the pressures of the Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti and that was not the reason for cancellation of the selection process. In addition, photo-copy of handwritten note dated 18.8.1998 is enclosed written by one Mr.Lallan Kumar mentioning about the bungling having taken place in exami-nation. Respondent No.1 has also filed the statement showing marks obtained by different candidates appearing in the written test and interview at Calcutta centre in support of its stand.

8. Petitioner filed his reply affidavit to this additional affidavit submitting that the stand taken in the additional affidavit is wrong and contradictory and the documents dated 15th & 16th December 1999 are manufactured. It is submitted that the respondents are trying to help the egional group at Mumbai and succumbing to the illegal and unjustified demand of theirs. The said regional group has powerful connection at Mumbai, which is so strong that even the Government of India is succumbing to its pressure. The action/inaction on the part of respondents has far reach ing adverse implications to the federal structure of this country. The said action will also encourage regionalism. The so-called documents dated 15th and 16th December, 1999 are manufactured documents and are prepared only with an intention to mislead this Court and to secure a favourable order. The said documents are prepared quite late i.e. in the mid of December 1999 and the said is not an official version of Shipping Corporation of India. It is relevant and important to submit here that the written test of TNOC at different centres was held on 24.5.1998. The interviews at New Delhi and Calcutta were held in July 1998 to the Secretary, Government of India, inistry of Surface Transport has clearly mentioned that it was only due to violent activities at Mumbai by a regional organisation, the interviews at umbai on 8th July, 1998 could not take place. It was further mentioned in this letter that the said regional organisation has illegal demand of recruiting only the "Bhumiputras" i.e. the "sons of the soil" from that region. In this official version of Shipping Corporation of India there is not even an iota of mention in regard to irregularities in written test/interview. Even in the counter affidavit filed by Shipping Corporation of India it has specifically admitted that only due to violent activities at Mumbai, the result could not be declared as selection process was incomplete Therefore, according to the petitioner, the real reason behind cancellation of selection process is the pressures of "Bhumiputras".

9. After hearing the arguments, in order to ascertain as to whether the stand taken by the respondent No.1 in its additional affidavit was genuine or an afterthought, relevant record containing the decision to scrap the selection process also summoned.

10. Perusal of the record shows that some pseudonymous complaint was received and secret verification/inquiry was ordered by Chairman & Managing Director into the allegations made in that complaint. Initially the enquiry related to shortcomings, defects and lacunae etc. in the selection procedure adopted. Vigilance department started that enquiry and called for the requisite information certain officers. However, thereafter a complaint dated 18.8.1998 by one Mr.Lallan Kumar was received in which he has mentioned that IIT students had written examination for some of the candidates. In this complaint, roll numbers and names of some candidates are specifically mentioned. File further shows another onfidential note dated 14.9.1998 of GM (Vigilance) as per which, while the matter being enquired into, further information was sought for from concerned sections for further scrutiny apparently keeping in view the allegations contained in complaint dated 18.8.1998. This is followed by another confidential note dated 28.1.1999 by the vigilance department which is written after investigation the recruitment procedure being adopted by one of the agencies employed by respondent No.1 M/s. Indian Institute of Psyichometry, Calcutta. In this note, drawbacks in the system of recruitment of cadets through the said agency are highlighted with emphasis that these drawbacks are needed to be created corrected for any future recruitment to avoid similar problem. Since the findings of the vigilance and the suggestions for improving the system of recruitment. as recorded by the vigilance department, in this note are material for our purpose, the same are reproduced in extensio:

"1. M/s. Indian Institute of Psyichometry, Calcutta is operated by two honorary professors as Director and Joint Director with strength of about 8 to 10 sub-ordinates and computer operators. The President of M/s Indian Institute of Psyichometry is stationed at Patna. The following are the draw-backs in the system of recruitment of cadets through M/s Indian Institute of Psyichometry that SCI followed and which need to be corrected for any future recruitment to avoid similar problem as experienced with this institute.

i. The applicants had been asked to send their applications directly to the recruitment institute who was processing all the papers including issuance of Admit Cards. It is advisable that applications are received at head office of SCI and Admit Cards are issued by SCI. The list of applicants with their roll numbers and centres of examination thereafter may be sent to the assessing institute to conduct examination at various centres under their supervision in attendance of SCI representatives at every centre who must initial the answer books with date to avoid any possibility of substitution of answer papers. To eliminate the possibility of substitution of answer books as far as feasible, the same must have pre-printed serial numbers and not handwritten serial numbers as was found in the Indian Institute of Psyichometry.

ii. With the existing system it is not only possible to exchange of answer papers but also to impersonate the candidate a complaint which was reported and found to be true. Since SCI was not having any photograph of the applicants as the application was being received in the institute there is a possibility of changing the photograph of the candidate while forwarding merit list.

2. During our investigation it has come to light that in 1996-97 most of the boys selected are from Eastern region and the bulk was from the State of Bihar and in the year 1997-98 the bulk was from Delhi. It is also surprising that only 13 boys (1.1%) were in the merit list from Mumbai (out of 1992 who had appeared in the examination from Mumbai centre) That may be one of the rea sons for the agitation at SCI head quarters.

3. Since the recruitment of cadets by the SCI is on six monthly basis and is a continuous process and not one time as in case of others, it is imperative that SCI exercise full control over the recruitment process and only the examination/assessment of merit may be given to the outsidagency/institute which preferably should be situated at Mumbai so that full control can be exerised to avoid recurrence of our experience with M/s Indian Institute of Psychometry, Calcutta.

4. At present there are no firm policy guidelines with regard to composition of the interview committee though the management generally forms an interview committee during such selection. However, it was given to understand that the member of the selecion committee thus nominated break themselves in 2 to 3 groups and conduct interview to expedite the proceedings, which is basically wrong. It is therefore, imperative that the management declares the policy guidelines as suggested hereunder:

I) Number of candidates to be called for interview should be twice the number of vacancies. Alternatively some cut off marks must be fixed for calling the candidates for interview. The present system of changing the cut off marks from examination to examination is not correct.

II) Interview centre should be preferably at the Head Quarters of SCI and the composition of the interview committee should be as follows:

     i.   Chairman  :  GM of any Operation group to  be  nominated                                               by     Director(P&A) 
 ii.  Members : DGM(FP)      }    Nominated
               DGM(Liner)   }    by various
               DGM(BC & T)  }    operation
               DGM(T&OS)    }    departments

 

iii. In case management feels that the above procedure may bring hard-ship to the candidates from various regions, management may like to declare four selection centres as presently being practiced. Four interview committees at Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai and Delhi are to be formed as per guidelines stated below:

Interview Committee for Mumbai and Delhi is to be same as men-

tioned in para II) above.

Interview Committee for Calcutta & Chennai

Chairman : RGM of respective regional offices.

Members : DGM(FP) from Head Office nominated by D (P&A).

DGM/AGM at least two.

Members from regional offices nominated by D(P&A).

5. It is understood that the management has already taken steps on suggestion of vigilance department to change the selection agency to a new institute preferably situated at Mumbai. However, to avoid similar problem as experienced with M/s Indian Institute of Psyichometry. Calcutta and also to make the selection process of cadets more fair and transparent, it is imperative that proce-dure changed as suggested above be considered and FP division may be advised accordingly.

N.B. Minimum qualifying marks: as per DGS guidelines, however, should not be less than 58% in PCM in 12t standards Board Exam.

-sd-

(RAKESH KUMAR)

ED (Vigilance)

sd/-

(J.L. GANGOPADHYAY)

GM (Vigilance)

C & MD PI

1. I generally agree with the recommendations made in the report except the one at S.No. 4(ii)

2. M/s Indian Institute of Psyichometry should be excluded from the list for further business.

3. For necessary orders.

-sd-

D(P&A)

cc ED(iv)

11. The reading of the aforesaid note shows that there were many loopholes the recruitment procedure followed by M/s Indian Institute of Psyichometry, Calcutta and there was every possibility to substitute the answer books and also to impersonate the candidates. It also mentions that the complaint regarding impersonation was found to be true. It is also clear from the note that due to this system being adopted by aforesaid agency at Calcutta, most of the boys were selected from the selected from eastern region and the bulk was from the state of Bihar and in the year 1997-98 the bulk was from Delhi. Only 1.1% boys were in the merit list from Mumbai and perhaps that was one of the reasons for agitation at respondent No.1 headquarters. Matter was considered by the Board of Directors and it was decided to cancel the entire selection process and to conduct the fresh selection. The material mentioned above, which is as per the record of the respondent No.1, indicates the reason for cancellation of the selection process is not the agitation from the pressure by 'sons of soil' but after noticing large scale irregularities in the conduct of written examination particularly by Indian Institute of Psyichometry, Calcutta. No doubt the interview at Mumbai, which was scheduled for 8.7.1998 could not be held at that time due to the violence created by "Bhumiputras" i.e.'sons of soil' but that is not the reason for cancellation of the selection process. Merely because the interview scheduled to be held at Mumbai centre was postponed due to the aforesaid reason, one cannot jump to the conclusiontherefrom that it is the reason for cancellation also in the face of documents to the contrary existing in the concerned file. In fact immediately thereafter defects and malpractices in the selection process were reported through complaints. Inquiry into the pseudonymous complaint started in July,1998 itself, as pointed out above. Another complaint is dated 18.8.1998 which was also investigated. This investigation led to the findings by the vigilance department which can be summarised below:

1. The procedure adopted by M/s Indian Institute of Psyichometry, Calcutta for conduct of examination was not valid.

2. There was a possibility of substitution of answer books.

3. Complaint regarding impersonation was found to be true.

4. In 1996-97, most of the boys selected were from eastern region and the bulk was from state of Bihar and in the year 1997-98 bulk was from Delhi. Only 13 boys (1.1%) were in the merit list from Mumbai(out of 1192 who had appeared in the examination from Mumbai centre).

5. During interview, 3 candidates in fact admitted that they did not appear in the written examination and somebody else was hired to appear in their place. No marks were awarded to these candidates in the interview and the word 'fraud' was written against these names.

6. Doubts were raised in some of the other cases also where candidates scored extremely well (obtaining 70% & above) in the written test could not answer when asked on the same topic in the interview. From the aforesaid revelations by vigilance department and the embers of the interview committee, respondent No.1 nurtured reasonable apprehension that the conduct of examination was not proper, and therefore, decided to cancel the selection process. When this is the actual reason for cancellation of the selection process borne on the record, the action of the respondent No.1 is obviously proper and valid. If on the one hand, respondent No.1 is supposed to act fearlessly and not to come under pressures of any such organisation like, Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti, on the other hand, it is also the paramount duty of the espondent no.1 to ensure that the recruitment is done on the asis of fair, proper and impartial selection process. Once there are circumstances and material on record putting question mark on the fairness of the selection procedure being adopted and large scale bungling in the form of impersonation annot be ruled out, the respondent No.1 took right step in cancelling the said selection process. This decision of the respondent No.1 cannot be dubbed as arbitrary or malafide. On the contrary, it would have ignited the ire of the Court, had it proceeded to recruit candi dates on the basis of such faulty selection process [See Pritpal ingh Vs. State of Haryana(supra)].

12. The matter was at the stage when the selection process was still underway. No final selection had been made so far. Even if the selection is made and a candidate's name appears in the merit list, he does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant even if a vacancy exists (Refer: State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha & Ors, , Miss Neelima Shangla Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, and Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (1985) 1 SCR 899).

13. In Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported in 1991 (2) SLR 779, Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court, speaking through Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. spoke on this principle in the following words:

"It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted."

14. Thus while petitioner does not have any right acquired in his favour, when it is not even known as to whether he stands selected or not, the only onus which the respondents are required to discharge are that they have not acted in an arbitrary manner in scrapping the selection process and this onus they have discharged, in the instant case, successfully, In fact respondents by cancelling the selection process have nipped the mischief in the bud itself. Law has gone to the extent by declaring that even if appointments are made but later it is found that the appointments were the result of some fraudulent or malpractices being adopted, such appointments can be cancelled and the incumbents i.e. beneficiaries of such malpractices, can be shown the door without even any show cause notice etc. as show cause notice, departmental inquiry etc. and principles of natural justice are foreign to such situations.(Refer: Hanuman Prasad & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr.,: , Ajay Kumar Minz Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 1993 (6) SLR 664 (Patna) and Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & Ors. Vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & Ors., .

15. One may also usefully quote the following observations of Supreme Court in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, :

"Para 19: It is in the public interest that members of the police force should be selected objectively and fairly. The factors that we have enumerated above satisfy us that the selection made by the Board was not objective and fair. It is, therefore, in the public interest that the selections and the appointments made consequent thereon be quashed forthwith.

Para 20: We appreciate that it may be that there are among those selected some who deserved selection and who will, consequently, suffer as a result of this order. There is, regrettably, considering the state of the selection records, no way in which such men can be identified. The public interest outweighs their interest. The directions that we shall now give shall enable them to compete once again with those who had sought selection with little or no disadvantage as a result of the years that have passed."

In this case, the Court quashed the selection which was found to be nfected with impurities.

16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the real eason for cancelling the selection process is the pressure put by the regional group, with powerful connection, at Mumbai is not borne from the records. No doubt due to their violent activities at Mumbai, the interviews could not take place which had to be postponed. In normal course, respondent no.1, would have held the interviews but for the malpractices and irregularities which came to light in the meantime and which were being investigated into and it is these irregularities which ultimately led to the decision of scrapping the selection process. The main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the counter affidavit, respondent No.1 had admitted that the interviews at Mumbai could not be conducted due to the acts of violence by the local organisation and there was no mention about any such alleged irregularities. However this is not factually correct. While admitting that the interviews at Mumbai were postponed because of the violent agitation, the counter affidavit specifically mentions about the shortcomings, defects and lacunae (para 2 of parawise reply) which were noticed in the selection process and it was then decided that improvement should be made in the present system of recruitment. The counter affidavit further mentions that the matter was under active consideration and no final decision had been taken yet as to whether to hold interview afresh or to scrap the whole selection process and hold fresh examination (preliminary objection No. 4 of the counter affidavit). Therefore, it cannot be said that counter affidavit is silent on this aspect, although it may not have been highlighted in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that documents dated 15 & 16.12.1999 (i.e. the reports of the members of interview committee) were manufactured documents as they were prepared only a month in advance of the date of hearing of this petition. This argument of the petitioner also may not be correct when these documents are viewed along with other documents on record. As mentioned above, investigation in this case started way back in July 1998 after receipt of pseudonymous complaint. Thereafter another complaint of one Mr. Lallan Kumar which is dated 18.8.1998 was received. Moreover the interview sheets as produced show that against 3 candidates word 'fraud: is mentioned. These sheets also show large dispaity between the marks obtained in written test and interview in respect of some of the candidates. Moreover the vigilance note prepared by vigilance department dated 28.1.1999 itself mentions about impersonation and further that the complaint received was found to be true. Therefore, it is not only that the members of the interview committee were writing for the first time in December 1999 about the malpractices in the conduct of examination. May be, because of the postponement of the interview at Mumbai due to violent agitation by local organisation, Sthaniya Adhikar Samiti the petitioner has somehow got the feeling that the cancellation of the selection process is because of the pressure of the said organisation. However factually this is not found to be correct. The decision of the respondent No.1, to maintain purity and fairness in the selection process, cannot be faulted with.

17. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.