Gauhati High Court
Ram Bilash vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 July, 2001
Author: D. Biswas
Bench: D. Biswas
JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J.
1. This petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus for appointment of the writ petitioner as General Duty Constable in the office of the Commandant Group Centre, S.S.B., Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh.
2. I have heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Sr. CGSC for the Union of India.
3. In December, 1993, a Circular was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the aforesaid posts. The petitioner appeared in the interview and was selected. He also qualified in the physical test held on 26.12.1993. The Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) submitted by the petitioner was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur at Tezpur as genuine. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur in his letter dated 21st December, 1994 (Annexure-IV) reported that the matter was enquired through the Circle Officer (Revenue) and found that Shri Ram Bilash, the petitioner, is a resident of village Solagaon under Tezpur Police Station where his father has been residing for the last 40 years. Despite that, the appointment letter was not issued contrary to the legitimate expectation of the writ petitioner.
4. Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been denied appointment obviously for no fault of his own. The other candidates selected along with the petitioner were appointed while the authorities refused to appoint the petitioner on the ground that his residential certificate was not properly verified by the District Administration. The learned counsel vehemently argued that a writ of mandamus be issued for appointment of the writ petitioner.
5. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Sr. CGSC referring to the averments made in affidavit-in-opposition argued that certain formalities are required to be completed before any appointment is made in the SSB which include verification of character and antecedents. Besides, in order to be eligible a candidate must be a permanent resident of North-East. Mr. Mahanta also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu vide letter dated 21st July, 1994 forwarded the Police Verification Form, but he did not make any endorsement about character and antecedents of the petitioner. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu did not clarify whether the petitioner is a permanent resident of Assam or Uttar Pradesh. According to Mr. Mahanta, a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu felt imperative since the petitioner submitted a Caste Certificate from Balia, Uttar Pradesh and not from Assam.
6. The letter dated 21st December, 1994 written from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur at Tezpur reads as follows :
"With reference to your letter quoted above, on the subject, I am to inform you that the matter was enquired through our Circle Officer (Revenue) and found that Shri Ram Bilash. son of Shri Jamuna Ram, village : Solagaon, Mouza, Halleswar, P.O. Bokajan, P.S. Tezpur, Distt-Sonitpur (Assam) is a resident of the above locality. His father Shii Jamuna Ram is residing at the above place since last 40 years at his own land."
7. The above information makes it clear that the petitioner's father is residing in the State of Assam for the last 40 years. This report has been submitted after necessary enquiry through the Circle Officer (Revenue). This information given clearly establish that the petitioner's family has been residing in Assam as permanent resident since long. In addition, the PRC was already there with the respondent authority. Despite that, the appointing letter was not issued on the plea that the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur in his letter dated 21st December, 1994 did not specifically mention that the writ petitioner is a permanent resident of Assam.
8. It is undoubtedly of no significance whether the petitioner prosecuted his education within the State of Assam or outside so long the Permanent Residential Certificate issued by the competent authority was not rescinded or revoked. So far the report about character and antecedents is concerned, it would appear that the Deputy Commissioner did not communicate on the subject. This omission on the part of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be treated as adverse. If the appointing authority had any reason to doubt the character of the writ petitioner, they could have insisted upon the Deputy Commissioner again by way of reminder to send his report. Unfortunately, they did not do so and thereby failed in their duty as is expected of responsible officers of the Union Government.
9. It would appear from Annexure-4 to the affidavit-in-opposition that the Deputy Commandant of SSB endorsed a copy of the letter dated 10th January, 1994 to the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur with a request to take early action in the matter. In para-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been mentioned that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Kahilipara, Guwahati vide latter No. SB.IX/5/93/94/49 dated 2.3.1994 intimated the respondents authority that there is nothing adverse against the writ petitioner. This report was not taken into consideration as the verification Roll Form sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur was not enclosed. In my opinion, the approach of the appointing authority in the instant case has been blatantly mala fide. The appointing authority had a PRC in their possession and in addition, Deputy Commissioner certified that the family of the petitioner has been residing in the State of Assam for the last 40 years. Besides, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Kahilipara, Guwahati also reported that there is nothing adverse against the writ petitioner. That was enough for the purpose of appointment save and except for completion of formalities, if any, in strict official terms. If the verification form was not forwarded back by the Deputy Commissioner, the appointing authority should have insisted upon the Deputy Commissioner to send it back. The petitioner, an unemployed youth, should not have been denied appointment on that plea. The way the matter has been handled shows that apart from negligence, there is also an element of mala fide to keep the petitioner at a bay from the purview of appointment. While candidates selected alongwith him have been appointed. The petitioner has been refused appointment for fault not of his own but of the appointing authority.
10. The appointment obviously pertains to the recruitment process initiated in 1993. Question would naturally arise whether at this belated stage a Writ of Mandamus could be issued ? It is not known whether as on today any vacancy is available to accommodate the writ petitioner. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Sr. CGSC expressed his inability to communicate on the subject in the absence of instructions. In view of this, the best course would be to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :
(a) the respondents are directed appoint the petitioner against any available vacancy by relaxation of his age, if permissible, under the Recruitment Rules.
(b) alternately, in the absence of any such provision for relaxation of age, the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way of compensation. The amount shall be paid by the Union of India represented by the Director General of SSB within a period of two months and the amount so paid may be recovered from the officer concerned who had failed to act impartially in the matter, after fixing the responsibility.
(c) the petitioner is also declared entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
Ordered accordingly.