Govind vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7190 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 7190 Del
Judgement Date : 14 December, 2012

Delhi High Court

Govind vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 December, 2012

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

$~8
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Decision: December 14, 2012

+                         WP(C) 7542/2012

       GOVIND                                          .....Petitioner
                          Represented by: Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate.

                                   versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                     Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber and
                     Ms.Akriti Jain, Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Facts as disclosed by the respondents bring out a rather unfortunate state of affairs and ignorance of the well-known legal principle that no appointment in excess of the vacancies notified can be made. Further, the facts bring out the plight of the citizens of this country by the bureaucracy showing supine indifference to the repeated representations made, thereby encouraging litigations which ultimately turn out to be dud missiles but at the unfortunate cost to the litigant who approaches the Court without knowing the facts as would be ultimately disclosed from the records of the bureaucrats.

2. ITBP, a Central Para Military Force sent a requisition to the Staff Selection Commission for recruiting Constables (General Duty) and the Staff Selection Commission conducted the necessary examination in the year 2011. The result of the qualifying examination was declared on

August 18, 2011 in which the name and roll number of 6385 candidates was notified because these were the number of vacancies which had to be filled up. Having marks less than the last empanelled candidate, the name of the petitioner was not in the list.

3. After the selection process was over, ITBP wrote to the Cadre Controlling Ministry i.e. the Ministry of Home Affairs that it had more vacancies available and requested that the Staff Selection Commission be requested to notify a further list of empanelled candidates; and when the communication was sent to the Staff Selection Commission it responded that since recruitment to the same post for which examination was proposed to be held in the year 2012 had commenced, it may not be possible to accede to the request made and additionally stated that due to shortage of manpower the Commission could not process the further applications.

4. Communications continued between ITBP, the Staff Selection Commission and the Ministry of Home Affairs, resulting in the Staff Selection Commission agreeing to send all the files, to be processed by ITBP and taking the ministerial responsibility to simply notify the further select list.

5. The dossiers of all candidates were sent by the Staff Selection Commission to ITBP which scrutinized the same and notified a supplementary list of those who had been selected and the petitioner, who had applied as an OBC candidate, found that the last empanelled candidate in the supplementary list had obtained 46 marks and notwithstanding the petitioner having obtained 48 marks. His name was not included in the list.

6. This led to a series of representations made by the petitioner to the Staff Selection Commission and ITBP. Needless to state, in the

representations made the petitioner brought out as afore stated in para 5 hereinbefore. Either the petitioner got no response to his representations or the response received was : passing the buck. Whereas ITBP informed petitioner that the recruitment had to be effected by the Staff Selection Commission and thus it had no role, the Staff Selection Commission took refuge either under the Right to Information Act or by passing the buck to ITBP.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents fairly concedes in Court today that in all fairness ITBP ought to have informed the petitioner the reason for his non-empanelment; being that the OBC certificate filed by the petitioner was defective and that the petitioner, as claimed by ITBP for the first time in Court, agreed to be treated as a candidate in the unreserved category and that in the unreserved category his merit was low.

8. Now, if the petitioner was informed as aforesaid, he would have taken an informed decision whether or not to accept his fate as it is or litigate by challenging the view taken by ITBP pertaining to the OBC certificate furnished by the petitioner.

9. It is regretful that the bureaucrats have shown supine in difference to not even respond to the various representations made by the petitioner or when they responded, the buck was passed.

10. Now, except for expressing our anguish, no relief can be granted to the petitioner because the facts which have been brought out in the Court would evidence that the real cause which has resulted in the petitioner not being empanelled for selection was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and thus with respect to the cause there are no pleadings.

11. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition but impose costs in sum of `25,000/- to be paid by ITBP to the petitioner and these costs would be

paid to the petitioner by means of a cheque which would be sent by Registered A.D. post to the petitioner at his address notified in the writ petition, which we note as under:-