Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Kumar Choubey vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 16 August, 2018
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Chief Justice, D.N. Patel
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L. P. A. No. 96 of 2018
-------
Sudhir Kumar Choubey, S/o Sri Satya Narayan Choubey, R/o Village Amroha, Post Amroha, PS Bhawanathpur, District Garwah ... ... Appellant Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, R.K. Puram, East Block-5, New Delhi
2. The Director General, Special Service Bureau now Shashastra Seema Bal, R.K. Puram, East Block-5, New Delhi
3. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Office of Shashastra Seema Bal, R.K. Puram, East Block-5, New Delhi ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.
-------
Order No. 05 : Dated 16th August, 2018
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. There have been multiple layers of litigations preceding institution of this appeal but we do not consider it necessary to refer to all of them in this judgment. The appellant was initially successful in a selection process undertaken for the post of a Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). That selection process was undertaken in the year 2002 but was cancelled subsequently on the allegation of certain irregularities. Communication to that effect, however, was made to the appellant in the year 2007. The appellant challenged the cancellation decision by filing W.P. (S) No. 2581 of 2007 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to give age relaxation to him for the period counted from the date of advertisement of the post till the time he received information about cancellation of selection. Next time the recruitment advertisement was published on 24/30th October, 2009. He had applied for the same, but was found to have crossed the age limit by one year and two months. This computation, according to the respondents, was made after giving him age relaxation as per direction given in the earlier writ petition. His candidature was cancelled for this reason. The appellant had brought a contempt action and that was disposed of giving him liberty to approach the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India, to apply for further age relaxation. The representation of the appellant was rejected by the Central Government.
3. The appellant thereafter had made applications under the Right to Information Act seeking the ground on which selection was cancelled and sought copies of certain reports but this was rejected by the concerned authority relying upon Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The reason for this was that Sashastra Seema Bal was exempted from the provisions of the said statute. The appellant's appeal under the 2005 Act before the Central Information Commission was rejected. Prior to such rejection, however the appellant had approached the learned First Court seeking following reliefs :
"(i).For declaration that Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not prohibit the information pertaining to mass irregularity in selection process leading to cancellation of appointment and is impliedly covered under the definition of 'corruption' as mentioned in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 24A;
(ii).For quashing the reasoning as contained in letter dated 15.02.2012 assed by respondent no. 3 with regard to information under RTI Act and also to quash order dated 23.07.2013, the order passed under appeal;
(iii).For direction upon the respondents to provide copy of enquiry report basing on which his appointment was cancelled; and
(iv).For quashing order dated 05.10.2011 whereby it is alleged that contrary to their own undertaking as given before Hon'ble Court refused to give further age relaxation."
4. The learned First Court dismissed the plea of the appellant by the judgment under appeal before us, holding :-
"9. On perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner initially participated in the recruitment process for the appointment on the post of Ct/GD on 07.12.2002 and after going through the selection process he was selected, but after a lapse of about five years on his representation vide communication dated 6.02.2007, he was informed that recruitment process has been cancelled. Aggrieved thereof, he knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2581 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2008 giving age relaxation for future vacancy for the period counted from the date of advertisement till the date he was informed about the cancellation of his representation. It appears being fully satisfied with the order dated 11.12.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2581 of 2007, as no appeal was preferred by him, applied in next vacancy, but, he was declared over-age by 01 year and 02 months. Again he filed Contempt petition, which was disposed of with liberty to approach the Central Government for age relaxation, as it is stated to be competent authority to give age relaxation beyond such period. With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner approached Central Government but his prayer was turned down vide letter dated
05.10.2011. From perusal of order dated 05.10.2011, it appears that the respondents-authorities 9 have thoroughly dealt with the matter and thereafter passed the order. Besides, it is an admitted fact that he was not given appointment letter, hence mere finding place his name in select list, does not give any indefeasible right to get appointment and on this score alone, the petitioner cannot claim his right of appointment. Empanelment, at best, is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr as reported in (2016) 10 SCC 484. Under the circumstances, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, no interference is warranted to quash order dated 05.10.2011 whereby respondents have refused to give age-relaxation beyond the period this Court has given.
10. Now coming to the second part of prayer whereby the petitioner prayed for quashing orders whereby he was being refused to copy of enquiry report and further direction to provide copy of enquiry report is concerned; on scrutinizing the pleadings available on record coupled with the relevant provisions of R.T.I. Act as also the impugned orders; it appears that the learned C.I.C. has elaborately dealt with every aspect of the matter and was very much conscious about the information sought for by the applicant-petitioner vis-à-vis relevant provisions of RTI, in particular, the Act which exempts the SSB from furnishing such information, and only thereafter came at a concrete finding at paragraph 5 that "In view of above submissions of the respondent-CPIO, the commission is of the view that for procedural irregularities the aforementioned three Board Members for the Recruitment test for selection of Constable (GD) in SSB, have since been penalized no case amounting to any corruption has been made out against the public authority. The appellant has been appropriately replied to in response to his RTI application."
11. Hence, in spite of the fact that this Court has every sympathy with the petitioner, as for no fault of his has to suffer a lot though this Court to fill up vacuum gave age relaxation in earlier round of litigation, but it also did not help the petitioner and furthermore, the impugned orders do not appear to be tainted with arbitrariness or infirmity or violative of any Constitutional rights; no relief can be granted to the petitioner."
5. We have been taken through the decision of the learned First Court by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We do not find any error in the reasoning of the learned First Court in dismissing the writ petition. Recruitment process dates back to the year 2002 and the learned First Court has rightly held that finding place in the select list does not give an incumbent indefeasible right to get appointment. Learned First Court found that the Central Information Commissioner had elaborately dealt with every aspect of the writ petitioner's appeal under the 2005 Act. We do not agree with the case sought to be made out by the appellant that the immunity from the 2005 Act granted under Section 24 of the Act does not cover recruitment process. The Sashastra Seema Bal has been listed against Item No. 15 of the Second Schedule to the 2005 Act and the provisions of the Act has been specifically excluded thereof except in relation to the allegation of some corruption and violation of human rights.
6. The finding of the C.I.C. that there is no corruption, cannot be subjected to further scrutiny as there is no procedural irregularity brought out by the appellant in relation to the said decision. The complaint of the breach of the direction in the earlier writ petition stands foreclosed by the order in the contempt proceeding.
7. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned First Court.
9. The appeal stands dismissed.
(Aniruddha Bose, CJ) (D.N. Patel, J) AKT