Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Prdip V Pawar vs M/O Urban Development on 12 October, 2023
O.4. No. 564/8015. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAT BENCH, MUMBAL ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 564 of 2015, Order Reserved on 15" September, 2023. Order Pronounced on 12th October, 2623, Hon'ble Justice Shri. MG, Sewlikar, Member () Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahal, Member (A) i, Shri Pradip Vijaykumar Pawar, age 38 years S/o Vijayakumar Hari Pawar working Residing at E-8, Gandhi Nagar, Nasik-Pune Road, Nasik 422006, © 2, Shri Shivaji Bandu Rupwate, Age 33 years, S/o Bandu Sakharam Rupwate, residing at G-164, Gandhi Nagar, Government of India Press Colony, Nasik-422006. 3. Ms, Neelima Sakharam Jadhav, Age 32 years, D'o Sakharam Narayan Jadhav, residing at G-241, Gandhi Nagar, Government of India Press Colory, Nasik 422006. 4. Shri Sachin Rambhau Jadahv, Age 30 years, S'o Rambhau Namdev Jadhav, At Post: Pimpalgaon-Khamb (Ganesh Nagar), Tal. & Dist. Nasik, Maharashtra, 8. Shri Nitin Jaywant Pagare, Age 32 years, S/o Jaywant Damodhar Pagare, residing at Government of India Press Colony, G-169, Gandhi Napa Nasik 422006. ~ oe & Shri. Sandeep Madhukar Dalvi, Age 30 years, Son of Madchukar Dattu Dalvi Residing at: Chitegaon, Tal: Niphad Dist: Nashik 422303. ~Applicants (Ma. Vishal Shirke, Advocate} VERSUS i. Unton of India, Through Director, Directorate of Printin OA, No. 5664/2015. Ministry of Urban Development, 'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-L1G008, 2. General Manager, Government of India Press, Gandhinagar, Nasik- Pune Road, Nasik-422006. ~Respondents 2 cm 7 : * Ree RA NS. OF Ek. & ok (Mr NK. Bafporohit afy Mr B Khosla, Advocates) Per: Hon'ble Justice Shri. MLG. Sewlikarn, Member (3 ORDER
The grievance raised by the applicants in this OA is that respond- ent No. 01 has erroncously scrapped selection process for the post of Chowkidar, Safaiwala and Farash thereby denying appointments to the applicants on these posts.
1.1. Facts in briefare thatrespondent no. 02 issued advertisement in Employment News dated 07" December, 2007 for filling up the post of Chowkidar, Safaiwala and Farash among other posts, The selection consisted of screening test/trade test and interview, After clearing the screening test/trade test, the applicants appeared for interview headed by a committee consisting of General Manager, Assistant Manager (Admn), Deputy Manager and one officer of SC/ST category. Thereaf- ter by order dated 11° March, 2008 seven candidates including appli- cant nos, | and 2 were recommended for the post of Chowkidar. By the > order dated 03" March, 2008 applicant nos. 3 & 6 were recommended O.8. No. 8647/2015.
for the past of Safaiwala and by order dated 01 February, 2008, appli-
ean &5.
cant nos. 4 & 3 were recommended to the post of Farash. The appli-
tte ee eants were called upon to fill up attestation form, accordingly they filled their attestation form. Police verification was also done. The only remaining action lefl was fo issue appointment order and joining ser- vices by the applicants. By notice dated 03° April, 2008 issued by re- spondent no. 02, 1f was informed that the process of recruitment/filling up of vacant posts was suspended consequent upon directions received from Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, Govern- ment of India, New Delhi. The applicants learnt that certain complaints with regard to the selection process were received by offices of the Government of India Press across the country. On 295 May, 2013, re- spondent no. O1 issued office memorandum stating therein that the Chief Vioilance Officer (CVO) investigated the recruitment process of the year 2007-2008 and the recommendations of the CVO were ac cepted by the ministry. Respondent no. 01 directed respondent no. 02 to continue the selection process for 11 categories of posts. By the same memorandum, selection process in respect of 05 categories of posts viz Chowkidar, Safaiwala, Farash, Assistant Plate Maker and Mechanic (Printing and Binding) was directed to be cancelled and closed for the reason of irregularities. The applicants obtained copy of the relevant SLL gents SRD?
cy) Ly i coq a = Po DA. Na. 564/205.
oN portion of the report of the CVO on the basis of which selection in ) respect of post of Chowkidar, Safaiwala, Farash was cancelled. The GRO CVO found 02 irregularities in the selection process; (1) selecting more candidates than the posts advertised and; Gi) selection of relatives of ceriain employees.
i.2. So far as post of Farash is concerned, the CV 0 found that all the three selected candidates were the relatives of the existing employees. For the post of Safaiwala, CVO found that only 05 vacancies were ad- vertised, 10 candidates were selected which appeared to be motivated and beyond requirement. It was further held that two selected candi- dates are the relatives of the employees. He further found that conduct- ing of interview 114 candidates in two days indicated that due diligence may not have been observed in selection process. Therefore, the selec- tion process for the post of Safsiwala was recommended to be scrapped. So far as the post of Chowkidar is concerned, CVO found that as against one OBC post advertised, three OBC candidates were selected who also happen to be relatives of the employees. The appli- cants made representations dated 20° June, 2013, 08" July, 2013, 14"
August, 2013 and 25" October, 2013 to the respondents requesting them not to scrap the selection process of the posts of Chowkidar, Sa-
faiwala and Farash. The applicants were finally informed vide OM at OA. No. 8364/2015.
dated 17" April, 2014 that the selection process for the posts including Safaiwala, Chowkidar and Farash was declared as seraped/cancelled on account of the irregularities in it
13. "Tne applicants are challenging the OM dated 17 April, 2014, have prayed for setting aside the said OM and OM dated 29" May, 2013 and also sought direction to the respandents to forthwith appoint all the applicants to the posts for which they are selected.
L4. Respondents filed ther affidavit in reply contending therein that there is delay in filing this OA. The issue raised by the applicants per-
tains to the year 2013. The applicants therefore, have no tight to chal- lenge the selection process after 02 years. The respondents contend that the direct recruitment for the posts was banned for many years. The Government of India Presses were restructured and modernized. Thereatier, the ban on direct recruitment was lifted. The Ministry of Urban . Development ai and the dire: stor rate of printing had receive red varl- ous complaints of irregularities In the recruitment in certain Govern- ment of India presses. Therefore, under the direction of Ministry of Urban Development, respondent no, 02 issued the order of suspension of reeruitrnent process on 03" April, 2008 till further orders. The in- vestigation of recruitment process was conducted by the CVO of the Ministry of Urban Development. It was made clear in the interview a GLA. No, $64/2015.
letter that General Manager, Government of India Press, Nasik reserves | ; | the right of not filling up the posts. They therefore, prayed for dismissal ofthe QA, 1.8. Applicants Aled rejoinder contending therein that in the year 1994-1995 selection was conducted in the Government of India Press, Nasik and about 90 per cent of the selected employees in the said se- lection process were relatives of the then existing employees of that . Press, One Shri Lalit Nirkhede was appointed on the post of Cleaner Driver, whose uncle Shri, R-K. Vanjari is working in Government of India Press Nasik on the post of Artist. Remaining allegations are rep-
etitions of the allegations made in the OA.
1.6. Respondents filed reply to rejoinder contending therein that Shri Lalit Nirkhede was selected because of his good performance in the interview. He was selected by the Recruitment Board.
1.7. Respondents filed additional affidavit in reply contending therein that as per the proposal of revised staff strength submitted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to the Department of Ex- penditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India Press Nasik will only have 68 outsourced Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) staff. Since the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has decided to discontinue with We, OANa, s64/eqis.
the post of MTS on regular basis in. Government of India presses, the 2 evised/reduced sanctioned strength is under finalization for the five * Presses. Therefore, the applicants cannot be considered for accommo-
dation tt same/some other jabs.
1.8. Applicants filed reply to this additional affidavit in reply con- tending that during the course of the arguments, the respondents were directed by the Tribunal to take instructions as to whether the appli- eants can be accommodated elsewhere. They contended that in addition. to Government of India Press, Nasik there are 04 more presses at Minto Road, Delhi: Ring Road: Delhi; Rashtrapati Bhavan, Delhi and Kol- kata. The respondents were, therefore, supposed to provide vacancy | position of these 4 presses and submit whether it was possible to ac-
commodate the applicants in any of these 5 presses, They further con-
tended that there are 10 vacancies in Government of India Press, Nasik iiself. Thus, all the applicants can be accommodated in the Government of India Press, Nasik.
1.9. The respondents filed sur-rejoinder to reply to additional affida- vit in reply. No new point has been raised in this sur-rejoinder.
O2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants Shri Shirke and learned counsel for the respondents Shri NK. Rajpurohit.
GLA, No. 9649/2015.
2.1, Learned counsel Shri Shirke submitted that the respondents cancelled the selection process because there were complaints regarding the selection process. He contended that on the basis of the report of the CVO, part of selection was abandoned, Report indicates that the conclusions reached by CVO were that in certain cases, a number of posts advertised was more than the vacant posts. In case of Chowkidar and Safaiwala, relatives of certain employees were selected anda ntumber of candidates at the interview was very high Le. 140 for Chowkidar and 114 for Safaiwala and the marking pattern does not inspire confidence by way of specific assessment of each candidate.
In case of post of Farash, it was noticed that 3 candidates had been -
selected out of a total of 138 applicants of which 47 had appeared in interview. All the 3 selected candidates are relatives of the employees.
He submitted that there are no allegations of nepotism/favoritism.
Simply they happen to be the relatives ofthe existing employees cannot be a ground to deny employment to the applicants. If this standard is applied, none of the children of the employees would be able to get selected. He submitted that the employer can abandon the selection process but he must give a plausible reason for doing so. If it smacks of arbitrariness, the decision of scrapping selection process cannot be upheld. He placed reliance on following case laws:
OA. No. 564/2015.
() Dinesh Kumar Sashyap and Others Vs. South East Central | Raibvay and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 798
(i) Union of India and Others Vs. Rajesh BU. Puthuvalnikatine and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285.
Lode He submitted that Shri Amjad Ismail Kadri was appoimied even when he did not meet the required qualifications and CVO had raised objection to this effect in his report. He further submitted that one Shri Lalit Nirkhede was appointed even when -there were allegations against him that he is the relative of an existing employee. This statement had not been challenged in the affidavit. He contends that this clearly shows that the decision of abandoning selection' process was arblirary and deserves to be set aside.
203. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Rajpurohit submitted that the selection process was marred by favoritism and "nepotism. Children of existing employees were selected, Selection of more candidates was done than the posts advertised, Interviews were held in two days for 114 candidates for the post of Safgiwala and for the post of Chowkidar 140 candidates were interviewed. This itself shows that holding of interviews was a farce, He further submitted that respondents are not in 4 position to accommodate these applicants elsewhere as the respondents are in process of outsourcing the services OLA. No. §64/8015.
24 He submitted that in the advertisement, there was a clear mention that the employer reserves the right not to fill up any post. The applicants were aware that the appointing authority had reserved its an hn te ce cae Wt a oft 4 oN ee pendtee ae yes oe right not to fill up the post. Several complaints were received. The matter was referred to CVO, who made the inquiries and it was revealed that children of the existing employees were selected. In case of the post of Farash, 3 candidates were selected and all of them are the » children of the existing employees. Interviews were held in two days for the post of Safaiwala for 114 candidates. This itself speaks of the manner in which the interviews were held. For all these reasons, the respondents abandoned the selection process. The decision of the respondents cannot fall within the reali of judicial review. He placed reliance on the following case laws:
() ditendra Kusnar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Anather, 2008 1) SCC (LE&S0 428
(ii) State of Bikar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, (2000) 9 SCC 94
25 We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
GuA, No. §G4/2015.
74 The only point we are called upon to decide is whether an employer can abandon the selection process at any time. Law.on this point is well settled, Employer can abandon selection pracess provided he gives a plausible explanation for deing so. This decision of the employer shonid not suifer from arbitrariness but showid be based on some acceptable explanation. Court will nat go into authenticity of the explanation fumished but the explanation must atleast be plausible.
ie In the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others {Supra}, the Supreme Court held thus:-
"6, Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. hen an employer invites applications for filling up a large maonber of posts, a large munber of unemployed youth apply for the sae. They spend fame in fling the form and pay the application fees. Thereajier, they spend tinie to prepare for the examination. They spend tine and money to travel to the place where written test is held. if they quality the written test they have to aeain travel fo appear for the Interview and medical examination, etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed, No doubt, as pointed out above, this is nota vested right. However the State must give some justifiable, non- arbitrary reason for mot Alling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to drticle 14 of the Constitution. If cannot without any rhyne or reason decide not to fill up the post. & must give some plausible reason jor not filling wp the posts. The Courts would normally not question the pustification out the justification must be ok reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State...
GLA, No. 5643/2015.
258. In the case of Union of fndia and Others Vs. Rajesh PU.
a ; ) (Supra), the Supreme Court held thus:-
"In the light af the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process liself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of ane or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification im lavw to deny appointment to the ather selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, villated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a wiilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to~cancel the -- entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that exeept 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a conplete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation."
"4 From the report of the CVO, it is seen that he found that in respect of 'Chowkidar, Safaiwala and Farash, relatives of the employees were selected. We are quoting his conclusions hereunder for facility of reference:
"3.5.3 In the case of selection to the post of Farash, it was noticed that 3 candidates had been selected out of a total of 138 applicants of which 47 appeared in the interview. Of the three selected Le., (1. Shri Nitin Jayanwant Pagare) Brother af Sh. Devendra J. Pagare, Asstt. Binder), 2. 8h. Arun Ambadas Kakad (Son of Sh. Ambadas Narayan Kakad Binder} & 3. Sh, Jadhav Sachin Rambhav (Sen of Sh. Rambhu Namdew Jakhay, OF Mic. Atted.) are relatives of the employees indicating that OLA Na. Gd (OTR.
he seleetion made to the posts has been biased. It is recammended that selection fo the posts may be scrapped and a jt fresh selection may be held.
3.3.4 For the past of Safaiwala against 5 advertised vacancies, i0 people have been selected wile th appears to be mote ated and beyond the requirements. Further. two of the candidates selected are ges of employees. (Le, && Goede Pravin Aunja Son of Sh. SN. Jadhav, Section Holder), Further the number of candidates appearing for the interview Le. 114 is large and interviews were Neild on 2 days indicating that ane diligence may not have been abserved in the selection process. Jt is recommended that selection to the post may be scrapped est fresh selection held.
3.3.5 in the case of Chowkidar if has been noticed that althaugh the number of ORC vacancies advertised is 1, 3 persons It this cate gory have been selected and i ix informed that the mumber of candidates can only be up to the lmit advertised but not beyond that. Further, in this category 3 relatives of the employees have been selected to the post. Hence s 'election to this post may be scrapped and fresh selection held.
*
63... From these conclusions, it is seen that he recommended cancellation of selection process for the posts of these 3 categories on the ground that selected candidates were more than the pasts advertised and candidates selected were relatives of the employees. In the case of post of Farash out of 138 applicants, 47 appeared for the interview and out of them 3 candidates had been selected by the name of Nitin Jayawant Pagare (Applicant No.5), Shri Aran Ambadas Kakad and Shri Jadhav Sachin Rambhavy (Applicant No.4). For the post of Safaiwala, advertised posts were 5, 10 candidates were selected, out of on) ty Rice Cent, 14 OLA. No. 964/2015.
them, 2 candidates were relatives of employees ie. Sh. Gode Pravin Runja and Smt. Jadhav Nileema Sakaram (Applicant No.3). In case of Chowkidar, OBC vacancies advertised was 7 and 3 persons were selected. All the 3 were relatives of the employee.
Bk. So in case of posts of Chowkidar and Safarwala, more candidates were selected than the posts were advertised. Argument of learned counsel for the respondents that more number of candidates were selected than the posts advertised is concerned, it has no force fore the reason that in advertisement itself it was specifically mentioned that the number of vacancies so notified are subject to change at later date. Therefore, the number of vacancies could be increased or decreased depending upon the vacancies which would arise in future. Hence, we do not find any irregularity if more candidates than the pasts advertised were selected. Report of CVO does not indicate that there were no vacancies, even then more candidates were selected. When there isa "0 clear stipulation in the advertisement that number of posts can increase or decrease depending upon the vacancies, we do not find any irregularity in selecting more candidates than the posts advertised. This argument would have been valid if there were no vacancies at all. Report of CVO does not indicates that despite there being no vacancies, more number of candidates were selected. Therefore, this argument is a URStrgy as ust Say ae wa, a8 OA. No. 64/2015.
{ counsel for the respondents Shri Rajpuranit invited the attention of this Tribunal to the case of Jitendra Aumar and Others fsupra) for the preposition that no appointment can be made beyond ahs os xx . ty Ae So pe anh noe wed Ton ¥ fe n ve od SF wenn wa € FS Yeh oxse the number of posts advertised. In Jitendra Numor ard Ovbers (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 66 thus:-
"66. There ly another compelling reason why we think nol
66. There is another compelling reason why we think not to ssue any direction upon the State to order appointment af the posts advertised or against the posis which were not advertised. In terms of the aforementioned provisions, therefare, any vacancy which had arisen after the advertisement made in January 2004 or after abolition of posts on 13.03.2003, which had not been advertised, cammat be offered to the appellants herein. The Government of Harvana alsa siates that 10 posts are kept vecant for unforeseen demands. Ht was further stated that on £3.05.2005, 290 afficers were holding posts against 230 sanctioned posts, Thus, any vacancy which had arisen by reason of retirement or death having regard to Section 4 of the 2002 Act is also not capable of being offered to the appellanis herein."
a > 3.8 We cannot pursuade ourselves to agree with his submission. In the case of Jitendra Kumar and Others (supra), the fact shows that advertisement was issued notifying that the recruitment would be in accordance with the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002. Section 4 of this act lays down that no appointment can be OA. Na, §64/2015.
made beyond the number of posts advertised or against the posts which were not advertised. Learned counsel Shri Rajpurohit could not point out any provision which indicates that no appointment can be made beyond the number of posts advertised or against the posts which were not advertised. On the contrary, the position in the case al hand is otherwise. There is a clear stipulation in the advertisement that the number of vacancies notified are subject to change at later date. When the advertisement specifically mentioned that the number of vacancies:
can increase or decrease depending upon those that may arise in future, there was nothing wrong in selecting more number of candidates than ihe posts advertised, As indicated above, the report of the CVO does not show that there were no vacancies at all and still more candidates were selected than the advertised. Therefore, this explanation does not _ appear to be sound,
345. Now we shall deal with the ob} relatives of the employees. As indicated above, for the post of Chowkidar, 01 post was advertised and 03 candidates were selected.
All the three candidates are relatives of the employees. In case of post of Farash, 3 posts were advertised, 3 candidates were selected and all the three were relatives of the employees. It is worth noting that for the post of Safaiwala, 138 candidates had applied, 47 candidates were ection relating to the selection of ~~ We OA No. 564 /2025.
interviewed. For the post of Chowkidar, 140 applications were received. Out of them, 03 candidates were selected and all of them were relatives of the employees. It is difficult to fathom that the selection committee did not find any other candidate suitable for the post of Chowkidar and Farash than the relatives of the employees. 111 diMienlt to accept that relatives of the employees were the only candidates the selection committee found to be capable for the posts of Farash and Chowkidar. This itself goes to show that all was not well with the process of selection so far as the posts of Chowkidar and Safsiwala were concerned. It indicates that there is something more to it than meets the eye, Preponderance of probability is not in favour of the applicants. Circumstances brought on record show that there is something fishy in the selection process on account of which only employees of the relatives were selected for the post of Chowkidar and Farash. However, the very same standard cannot be applied so farvas"
the post of Safaiwala is concerned. In case of Safaiwala, 05 posts were advertised and 10 candidates were selected and 02 of them were the relatives of the employees. Therefore, this figure indicates that only relatives of the employees were not selected. Other candidates were also selected. Except that two of them being the relatives of the employees, no other objection is raised to prove that malpractice was ter Oo OLA. No. 964/205.
adopted in the selection of candidates for Safaiwala. The report of CVO LN Sys 8 By fs §| vaguely mentions that the marking pattern does not inspire confidence by way of specific assessment of each candidate. This statement is vague. CVO has not explained as to why the marking pattern does not inspire confidence. Therefore, it leads to one logical Inference that simply because they happen to be the relatives of the employees, suspicion was raised on their selection. Simply because they are the relatives of the employees cannot be a ground to draw a conclusion that they had indulged into malpractice. If they are meritorious candidates, their selection cannot be questioned simply because they are the relatives of the employees. Had there been any other ground associated with the ground of they being the relatives of the employees, the matter could have been different. The decision of the competent authority in this respect is based on the surmises and conjectures. It is true that Shri Lalit Nirkhede was appointed despite he being the relative of an employee. The respondents have admitted that Shri Lalit Nirkhede was relative of an employee and he was appointed as Cleaner Driver. Learned counsel Shri Shirke submitted that when he was selected despite being relative of an employes, the applicants should also have been selected, The respondents have applied double standard in appointing Shri Nirkhede and not appointing the applicants.13
OA. Na, 5649/2045.
Nn 3.8. Learned counsel Shri Rajpurohit submitted that simply because x S57", wernt, ett one person was wrongly appointed does not entitle the applicants to claim the same equality, He submitted that the applicants cannot claim negative equality. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the case of his contention. In the case of Kamestwar Prasad Sinek and Another {supra}, the Supreme Court held in para 30 thus:-
"30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enfarced Im a negative manner When any authority is sh sown fo Rave committed any illegality or irregularity In favour of any bidividual or group of individuals, others eannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to then. Similarity wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard, tis Court in Gursharam Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equallty before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons isan Irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on 'the plea of equality as enshrined in Articie 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed tn the High Court. The Court observed (SCC p63, para 9) :
" Neither Article 14 of the Constlixtion conceives within the equality clause this eoncept ner Article 226 empower the High Court io eaforce such claim: of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to dh vecting fo continue and perpetuate an HMegsal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by t petitioner that his claim being Just and legal, has heen t% ¥ 20 OA. No. 9564/2015.
denied to him, while it has bean extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."
Again in Seey. Jaipur Development Authority Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35, this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding:
(SCC pp. 51-33, para 28} "Suffiee if to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment mide to some other persons wrongly, would not forni a legal prentise to ensure if to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could It be legalised. Jn other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."
3.6 In view of the above, when the respondents committed irregularity in appointing Shri Nirkhede for the post of Cleaner Driver, the applicants cannot claim the same equality. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the applicants cannot be considered.
3.4, In the light of the above, as held in the case of Rajesh BU.
(supra) that those candidates whose selection cannot be tainted deserve --
to be appointed. In the case at hand, the selection of the candidates for the post of Safaiwala cannot be said to be suffering from any irregularity or illegality. Therefore, the applicants Nas.3 and 6 who were recommended for the post of Safaiwala deserve to be appointed. Other applicants did net deserve to be appointed for the reasons herein abave discussed.
DUA. No. §64/2035.
35 Learned counsel Shri Rajpurohit submitted that the respondents are in the process of outsourcing the services of MTS. From the argument and from the reply, 8 does not appear that the outsourcing process has been finalised. Even otherwise, this cannot be a ground to deny appointment to the applicants Nos.3 and 6 when they were atherwise found to be eligible and selected for the post of Safaiwala. SS. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to partly allow the application. The respondents are directed to complete the selection process and appoint the applicants Nos.3 and 6 as Salaiwala, ifthey are found still to be eligible having regard to the medical fitness and police verification of their antecedents.
OF» Application in respect of other applicants stand dismissed.
Pe Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs, (Dn Bhyewtin Salfad {Justice MG. Sewlikar) Member (A) Member (3) ac/tha.