Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2017
1
W. P. No.6839/2017
W. P. No.6839/2017
21.06.2017
Shri Vishal Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the
respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard.
Petitioner takes exception to order dated 5 th October, 2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur, Bench Jabalpur; whereby, in Original Application preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking quashment of letter of cancellation/rejection of appointment dated 24.11.2015 and for a direction to accept the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Staff Nurse in the grade of Rs.9300/-- 34,800/- grade pay Rs.4600/- has been dismissed.
Having applied for the post of Para Medical categories in Railways in response to Railway Recruitment Board Employment Notice 04/14 and qualifying therein, the petitioner vide communication dated 02.09.2015 by the Railway Recruitment Board was informed of his name being recommended to the Chief Personal Officer, West Central Railway, Jabalpur; for the post of Staff Nurse; whereafter, the petitioner was called for documentation and 2 W. P. No.6839/2017 verification of candidature. Petitioner disclosed the antecedent of his being convicted for an offence under Sections 147, 323, 325/149, 324/149 IPC. This disclosure led the respondent cancell the petitioner's candidature vide communication dated 24.11.2015. The Tribunal negatived the challenge holding that it being within the powers of Authorities to examine the antecedents to adjudge the suitability of a person for a Government Service is wider enough and the stay of conviction only makes it inoperative and not non-existent.
Being unsuccessful in his challenge to the cancellation of the candidature before the Tribunal, has led the petitioner file this petition.
The challenge is on the ground that the order of conviction having been stayed by the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.677/2013 by order dated 22.09.2015, petitioner was wrongly deprived from the appointment. Reliance is placed on the decision in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and ors. AIR 2007 SC 1003 and Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali: 2007 (1) SCC 673.
Trite it is that there is no right of appointment. Merely because the petitioner is found successful in a selection will not create a vested right in him for an 3 W. P. No.6839/2017 appointment to a civil post. Moreover, as the petitioner stands convicted it is well within the discretion of the Competent Authority to cancel the candidature as the petitioner stood convicted prior to the date of examination which was on 08.02.2015.
The contention that the employer ought to have ignored the conviction because of its stay by the High Court by order dated 22.09.2015 deserves to be negatived on the principle of law culled out from the decision in Ravikant S. Patil (supra) that a stay of conviction does not render it non-existent. For the same reason, the judgment relied upon in Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner in the given facts of the present case.
Taking any view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order as would warrant any indulgence.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (SANJAY YADAV) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Loretta