Sudhir Kumar And Ors. vs Bureau Of Indian Standards
2004 Latest Caselaw 237 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the non-processing of their applications made to the respondent-Bureau of Indian Standards for appointment to the post of Assistants and Stenographers. The petitioners claim that a sum of approximately Rs.22,50,000/- had been collected as application money. Respondent, it is claimed, has neither made the appointments nor refunded the money.

3. Notice to show cause was issued on 13th October,2003. Counter-affidavit has been filed. Respondent's case briefly stated is that an advertisement for recruitment of "Assistants" and "Stenographers" was taken out in the `Employment News' dated 10-16 November, 2001. It was intended to fill 24 vacancies of "Assistants" and 7 vacancies of "Stenographers". In pursuance to the advertisement, application fee of Rs.150/- per candidate was received by the respondent. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, as also the departmental candidates were exempted from payment of application fee.

4. It is the respondent's case that only Rs.4,46,400/- approximately received as application money. Total number of applications against the post of "Assistants" received were 5822, out of which 2846 were Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Departmental candidates leaving 2966 candidates from whom the application money was received. In addition applications were received from 741 stenographers. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioners. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution withdrew the sanction for recruitment of "Assistants" and as such the respondents could recruit only 7 Stenographers. It is stated that non-recruitment of the "Assistants" was on account of the withdrawal of sanction by the Government of India. Letter from the Ministry dated 22nd May, 2002 has been placed on record.

5. The above may provide a justification to the respondent for not proceeding with the recruitment of the Assistants in view of the withdrawal of the sanction. However, it does not justify the inordinate delay in refund of the application money. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to urge that process of refund was on and the petitioners themselves have received back the money except for petitioner No.3, whose current address is not known. Counsel for petitioner submits that he would furnish the address of petitioner No.3.

6. The factum of refund of money to the petitioners alone is not an answer to the inaction and unsatisfactory manner in which the refund of these applications has been done. The respondent should have refunded the application money within a reasonable period of 2-3 months from the date it was known that recruitment for the post of "Assistants" is not going to be materialized in the absence of sanction. The sanction for filling the posts of "Assistants" was withdrawn on 22nd May, 2002. Nearly two years have elapsed, yet the application fee of prospective applicants has not been refunded. It has been withheld wrongfully. The delay in refund is inexcusable. Not only this, the respondents should have taken out an advertisement in the Journal/ Newspaper wherein the advertisement for recruitment had been given. This is the least that respondents should have done to ensure that the prospective applicants do not labour under the false hope and expectation of getting employment.

7. In these circumstances I direct the respondents to refund the application money of the candidates, which has still not been refunded, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.6.2002.

The writ is disposed of with these directions.