Sh. Sharad Kumar Yadav vs The Chairman, Food Corporation Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 185 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No.5497/2014

%                                                     12th January, 2015

SH. SHARAD KUMAR YADAV                                        ......Petitioner
                  Through:               Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate.



                           VERSUS

THE CHAIRMAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA      ...... Respondent

Through: Ms. Anjna Masih, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Counsel for the petitioner prays for more time for filing the

rejoinder affidavit. In my opinion petitioner has already had time from

15.12.2014 to file the rejoinder affidavit and thus he need not be given

further opportunity, especially in the facts of the present case which show

that the petitioner not only with the main petition should have filed the

application filed by him seeking appointment alongwith connected

documents, it is otherwise also borne out from the record that the petitioner

alongwith his application seeking appointment never gave the requisite

documents showing his practice as an Advocate for three years and instead

only gave a self-serving certificate filed by the respondent as Annexure R-3

to the counter affidavit, and which the respondent has treated as not

appropriate evidence to show three years experience as a practicing

advocate.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner applied for being

appointed to the post of Assistant General Manager (Legal) of the

respondent/Food Corporation of India in terms of the publication in the

employment news dated 8th January, 2011. Petitioner was successful in

qualifying the written test and therefore he was called for the personal

interview. Interview was conducted on 13.5.2011. Instead of the petitioner

who received higher marks, two other candidates Sh. Narender Kumar and

Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta were appointed and therefore the present writ

petition has been filed seeking appointment to the post of Assistant General

Manager (Legal) Category-I of the respondent.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner received marks which were

higher than Sh. Narender Kumar and Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, however, the

respondent states that petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of

having the experience required for appointment to the post of Assistant

General Manager (Legal) and which criteria was that either the candidate

must have five years experience in legal work with the Central/State

Government or with a Public/Private Sector Undertaking or in the alternative

he must have three years practice at the bar. The eligibility criteria of three

years practice at the Bar was to be certified by the candidate in a certificate

which was to be supported by appropriate evidence that the candidate has

appeared for three years in court cases in at least five matters per year while

practicing at the Bar.

4. The case of the respondent is that petitioner only gave a self-

serving certificate filed as Annexure R-3 to the counter affidavit without

supporting evidence. Though the list gave 15 cases, but a reading of the

certificate Annexure R-3 signed by the petitioner on 13.9.2011 shows that

there is no year, mentioned of appearances in the cases numbering five each

year and totaling 15. Also, with respect to 4 out of 15 cases the number of

the suit is also not mentioned. Therefore, the position is that except a self-

serving certificate filed by the petitioner with the respondent for

appointment, appropriate evidence which was required to be given either

with the application or at the time of interview was not given. This shows

that at the relevant time prescribed for giving of the necessary documents i.e

either at the time of the filing of the application or at the time of interview

the required documents were not given and thus a candidate cannot contend

that he can file the necessary experience documents at a later stage. In a

selection process valuable rights accrue in favour of the candidates and thus

candidates who fail to bring the requisite documents as required to show as

per the eligibility criteria, surely cannot be given appointment by the

respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that certificate

Annexure R-3 shows that an endorsement exists in the same that the same

has been verified from the original and thus it must be held that petitioner

had complied with the requirement of giving appropriate evidence. In my

opinion the petitioner cannot read the endorsement of verification from the

original as contained in Annexure R-3 as if automatically the requisite

documents were filed to show that the petitioner had appeared in five cases

in each of the three years prior to his applying to the post in question

because there can be no malice of any of the officers of the respondent to

wrongly say that only the certificate was filed without supporting evidence.

Also, the petitioner, assuming stand of the respondent to be false, could have

filed his application for appointment with the supporting documents, but

petitioner has not done so. The petitioner otherwise also has not till date

filed the supporting evidences of court appearances and which he would

have if what the petitioner is arguing was correct.

6. There is another reason why the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed and this is on account of delay and laches. The post in question in

this case was filled up in terms of the interview conducted on 13.5.2011 i.e

three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Selected candidates have

already been given appointments and the available vacant post has thereafter

as per the counter affidavit been advertised in the subsequent advertisement.

Courts have taken the principle of limitation of three years as a good guiding

factor especially considering the cases such as the present in which not only

valuable rights accrue in favour of the selected candidates who otherwise

would if disqualified sought another appointment in this long period of three

years in fact a subsequent recruitment process has commenced in which the

vacant posts of the earlier advertisement have merged meaning thereby that

today no longer the post in which appointment is sought remains and in

which the petitioner seeks appointment. The interview in this case

was conducted on 13.5.2011 and appointments were made in the

year 2011 itself. This writ petition however has been filed after a

considerable delay in August, 2014. Merely because petitioner in the year

2012 filed an RTI query and seeks to get his query replied cannot mean that

whenever an RTI query is filed and response is given, cause of action will

accrue inasmuch as cause of action will accrue from the date of appointment

not given to the petitioner and not when response is given to an RTI query.

In fact the RTI process is also of 2012 and this petition has been filed

thereafter only in August, 2014.

7. Dismissed.

JANUARY 12, 2015                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne