Delhi High Court
Sunil Saini vs Food Corporation Of India on 13 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 13, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9978/2017 & CMs 40703-40705/2017
SUNIL SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. De and Ms. Ananya De,
Advocates
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj, Standing Counsel and
Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocate for FCI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant General Manager
(Law), advertised by respondent and according to petitioner, it was
disclosed on respondent's website on 21st April, 2016 that petitioner has
been shortlisted provisionally for the said post and 'offer of appointment'
will follow shortly. Petitioner claims that despite various representations,
he has not been given 'offer of appointment' and hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner draws the attention of this Court to
respondent's E-Mail of 7th September, 2016 (Annexure P-5) to submit
that respondent had sought certain information including clarification
regarding the vakalatnamas submitted by petitioner to indicate his work
experience. Attention is also drawn by petitioner's counsel to E-Mail of
14th March, 2017 (Annexure P-7) sent by petitioner to respondent
clarifying that in the vakalatnamas furnished, he had used initials/half
signatures, whereas in the Application Form for the post in question, he
had put his full signatures. Vide Communication of 3rd May, 2017
(Annexure P-8) respondent had rejected petitioner's representation of 14th
March, 2017 (Annexure P-7) by a cryptic order.
3. Petitioner's counsel relies upon certain information obtained under
the RTI Act (Annexure P-9 colly.) to show that the Committee constituted
for document verification [vakalatnamas of the candidates for the post of
Assistant General Manager (Legal)] has opined that the findings appear
to be in consonance with the Recruitment Notice. Attention of this Court
is also drawn by petitioner's counsel to information under RTI (Annexure
P-9) to show that in the Select List, petitioner was at Sl.No.2 out of three
selected candidates with two waitlist candidates for the OBC category.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent clarifies that non-
submission of 'No Objection Certificate' is not a ground for rejection of
petitioner's candidature. He informs that one candidate from the waitlist
of OBC category has been appointed in place of petitioner few months
back. It is pointed out that petitioner had not given supporting
documents, like the orders passed in the cases in which he had appeared,
to clear the controversy regarding vakalatnamas. So, it is submitted by
respondent's counsel that this petition deserves to be rejected.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of order of 3rd May, 2017 (Annexure
P-8), I find that petitioner's representation has been cryptically rejected,
which is unwarranted in view of fact that petitioner is shown to be at Sl.
No. 2 in the Select List. So far as mis-matching of signatures on
vakalatnamas is concerned, I find that this aspect cannot be blown out of
proportion as it is expected that respondent ought to have called upon
petitioner to provide the certified copies of orders to allay the
apprehension of mis-matching of signatures on the vakalatnamas. This
would have clinched the issue of mis-matching of petitioner's signatures
on vakalatnamas in question. Such a view is taken in view of the fact
that the Committee constituted for the document verification vis-à-vis
vakalatnamas had opined that the petitioner's qualification is in
consonance with the Recruitment Notice. There is nothing on record to
show as to why the opinion of the Committee was overruled while
rejecting petitioner's candidature on the ground of mis-matching of
signatures on the vakalatnamas vis-a-vis recruitment relating documents.
6. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that this was petitioner's last chance to apply for the post in
question. Taking a compassionate view, this Court directs the respondent
to re-consider petitioner's representation of 29th May, 2017 (Annexure P-
10) provided petitioner supplies the certified copies of the orders passed
in relation to the vakalatnamas furnished to respondent, within four
weeks. If it is so done, then respondent shall decide petitioner's
representation (Annexure P-10) afresh by passing a speaking order within
six weeks of receipt of certified copies of orders in question and the fate
of the representation be conveyed to petitioner within two weeks
thereafter, to enable petitioner to have recourse to law, if need be. It is
clarified that if certified copies of the orders relating to vakalatnamas in
question furnished by petitioner are found in order, then respondent shall
not insist upon the discrepancy of the signatures on vakalatnamas vis-à-
vis Application Form, etc..
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed
that the selection made by respondent from the waitlist of OBC category
on the post of Assistant General Manager (Law) shall be subject to the
outcome of the representation. Respondent shall also intimate the
candidate selected from the wait-list of OBC category about the rider put
by this Court and copy of this order shall be also furnished to him.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to both the sides.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 13, 2017
s
