Gujarat High Court
Bhagirathsinh Ajitsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 28 February, 2022
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4856 of 2015
===============================================================
BHAGIRATHSINH AJITSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHASKAR TANNA. LD.SR.ADV with MS.VIDHI BHATT FOR TANNA
ASSOCIATES(1410) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR K.M.ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 28/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Tanna with learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for Tanna Associates for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondents.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) Be pleased to allow this petition.
(b) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of appointment and therefore should be deemed to have been appointed in the selection process of 2011-12 of PSI (Unarmed) which culminated in selection process in July 2013.Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022
C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022
c) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for training of PSI (Unarmed).
(d) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief/ s in the interest of justice."
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for Class-III post of Constable and Police Sub-Inspector (PSI).
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. In November-December 2011, the advertisement was issued on website for direct recruitment and inviting applications for Class-III posts of Constable and Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) and equivalent posts. The petitioner applied in accordance with the advertisement and he was interviewed for the post of PSI. Out of 206 vacant posts, 127 posts were meant for general category, 12 for scheduled caste, 43 for scheduled tribe and 24 for socially and economically backward category.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the minimum age limit as on 14.12.2011 for PSI (Unarmed) was 21 years and maximum was 28 years and educational qualification was graduate degree from recognized University established by law or by UGC.Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022
C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed 28 years on 14.12.2011 but he got an advantage because of Clause-4 of the said advertisement where it was interalia stated that those persons who are working as Constable (Unarmed), Head Constable (Unarmed), ASI (Unarmed) would be given relaxation of 3 years for PSI (Unarmed).
3.4. However, when oral interview was taken in April 2013, the petitioner had left the job of Constable and was working as Project Officer with District Sports Office being a sportsman.
3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was within the age limit of extended period of 3 years while he had applied but not at the time of oral interview. Insofar as physical fitness and other things were concerned, the petitioner was fit and had crossed all required qualifications. For Police Sub-Inspector(Unarmed) there were four written examinations which petitioner had appeared as and when it was taken. The interview marks for PSI (Unarmed) was 50 and accordingly petitioner qualified for all purpose.
Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 3.6. The petitioner was called for oral interview on 25th May, 2013 and was asked to produce documents of his current service in Police Department. As the petitioner had resigned from the Police Department in the month of April, 2013, he could not produce the documents of service on the date of interview and accordingly, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the oral interview on the ground that he was not entitled to relaxation in upper age limit and oral interview was not taken.
3.7. It appears that the petitioner thereafter appeared pursuant to the advertisement issued for the recruitment of the year 2014 for filling up 1300 post of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector. Initially the petitioner was not permitted to file on-line application. However, pursuant to the clarification, issued in November, 2014 permitting the relaxation of five years in upper age limit for sports person, the petitioner was permitted to apear in written test and physical test. However, the petitioner failed to clear the physical test. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers.
4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tanna submitted Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 that the petitioner was in service with the Police Department when he applied for the post of PSI and as such, he was granted relaxation of three years in the age limit for the recruitment of Class-III post of Constable and Police-Sub Inspector (unarmed) and was allowed to appear in written test and physical fitness test. However, at the time of oral interview, the petitioner was informed to produce documents to show that he was working in the Police Department on the date of interview and as the petitioner had resigned in the month of April, 2013, he could not produce documents of his service in the Police Department and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been disqualified for oral interview.
4.2. It was submitted that the petitioner was also entitled to five years of relaxation on the ground of sports quota, however, at the relevant time as the petitioner was entitled to relaxation of three years on the date of application, the petitioner did not claim for the relaxation of five years on the basis of the sports quota.
4.3. It was submitted that the petitioner participated in the recruitment of 2014 and at that time, his claim of relaxation of five years on the basis of rules, was considered by the respondent-Authorities.
4.4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tanna submitted Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 that the petitioner could not have been disqualified in the oral interview as well as in the recruitment process of 2011 on the ground that he was not in service in the Police Department on the date of the oral interview.
4.5. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tanna relied upon the following decisions :
(1) Purshottam V/s. Chairman M.S.E.B & Anr.1 (2) Rajesh Kumar Daria V/s. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.2 (3) Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.3 (4)Saurav Yadav & Ors. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.4
5.1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani submitted that once the petitioner has taken part in the second recruitment process in the year 2014, the petitioner cannot claim for any alleged lapse incurred by the authorities in interpretation of the rules granting relaxation to the petitioner.
5.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader 1 1999 (6) SCC 49 2 2007 (8) SCC 785 3 2019 (20) SCC 17 4 2021 (4) SCC 542 Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 Mr.Antani relied upon the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 :
"5. It is respectfully submitted that as per Home Departments' letter No.MHK-102009-292-S dated 30.06.2011 (annexed herewith as Annexure-A) a recruitment board was set-up for direct recruitment to fill up the vacancies of Police Sub-Inspector (Class-III) in the police department of Gujarat State.
6. It is submitted that the Board members appointed in the Recruitment Board included officers of high rank of Police / Home Department and majority of the officers were IPS officers.
7. It is submitted that total 509 vacancies were to be filled. Out of which 293 Unarmed Police Sub- Inspectors, 151 Armed Police Sub-Inspectors and 56 Intelligence Officers posts were to be filled. An advertisement was issued on 14.11.2011 (annexed herewith as Annexure-B) in the daily newspapers for 509 posts. For which in all 4,05,450 applications were received online (including for the constable recruitment). The information was also put on the internet on nic website http//ojas.guj.nic.in. The applications were checked and thereafter physical test was held from 18.01.2012 to 01.03.2012 at 12 centres in Gujarat State. The physical test was common for constabulary and Sub-Inspectors recruitment. It was conducted by using modem technology like RFID system, Biomatrix and digital machines to measure height and chest. 23,182 candidates qualified in the physical examination and became eligible to appear in the written examination for Police Sub-Inspectors posts. Written examination was conducted for these candidates on 25/26.08.2012. After the result of written examination was declared, applications were asked for from candidates who were having sports certificate of the National / State level. Total 235 applications were received which were scrutinized and as per Resolution No.CRR-1077- 2660-G-2 dated 25.02.1980 No.CRR-1188-3644-G-2 dated 01.08.1990 (annexed herewith as Annexure-C) and CRR/1099/UO-4110/G-2 dated 18.04.2001 (annexed herewith as Annexure-D), 5% marks of those obtained in the written examination were added for these candidates and a total merit list was prepared. As Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 per Govt. of Gujarat resolution No.GG-Guj-35/MHK/102010/335/C (annexed herewith as Annexure-E) three times the number (1,578) of vacancies were called for the interview examination. Total 509 candidates were selected in the three categories namely, Unarmed Police Sub-Inspectors, Intelligence Officers, Armed Sub-inspectors. A waiting list of 10% was also maintained as per the rules. The whole process got completed in August 2013. After completing this process, the selected candidates were subjected to police verification and medical examination by office of Director General & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. Those candidates who were able to pass through this process were given appointment letters and were sent to Police Academy, Karai to undergo a rigorous training process. After completion of the training period, the candidates who passed in the training were sent to various districts for training and final postings. This process got completed more than six months back.
8. As per the recruitment calendar for the year 2013-14, fresh advertisement has been given for filling-up 1300 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors. A new Recruitment Board consisting of new officers was formed to carry out the process of fresh recruitment. Presently the physical tests have been completed and the written examination is likely to be taken in the near future.
9. The present petitioner had applied for the post of PSI and had submitted online application on nic website http//ojas.guj.nic.in. between 14.11.2011 and 14.12.2011. His confirmation number was 42962884. The candidate successfully completed physical test held in February 2012 and appeared in the written examination in August 2012. The candidate had also submitted sports certificates and was qualified for the oral interview by adding sports marks to the marks obtained in the written examination. The candidate was called for oral interview on 25.05.2013 but was not subjected to the oral interview examination since he was found to be over age. Since online applications had been taken, the documents verification of the candidates was done only at the interview stage and during that rocess of document verification this candidate was found to be over age. As per Notification of Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar's No.GG-Guj-
Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 38BRT-1097-3735-C dated 27.08.2008 (annexed herewith as Annexure-F) serving Constables / Head Constables / Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Gujarat State Police service are eligible for three years age relaxation to be eligible for direct selection as PSI. Initially during the time of application, this candidate was serving as a police constable but subsequently he had left the police service and had joined as Project Officer, Anand on 12.06.2013. Therefore, this candidate was no longer eligible for the three years age relaxation given to Policemen serving in Gujarat State police service. Moreover, the candidate did not give any representation for age relaxation in the sports quota at the relevant time when the recruitment process was going-on. Now after a period of one and half year, the candidate gave a representation on 04.01.2015 (annexed herewith as Annexure-G) after the whole recruitment process got completed. There was no mention of age relaxation in the sports quota in the Sub-Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 2008 (annexed herewith as Annexure-H) or Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination Rules, 2011 (annexed herewith as Annexure-I). Even though a Circular No.CRR/1188-3644-G-2 dated 01.08.1990 (annexed herewith as Annexure-J) and CRR/ 102004/CM-2/G-2 dated 05.12.2006 (annexed herewith as Annexure-K) of General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat was in existence at the relevant time but was never brought into operation since there was not a single representation from the candidates for providing age relaxation under the sports quota.
10. It is pertinent to note here that the present applicant has taken part in the present ongoing recruitment of Police Subinspectors / Assistant Sub- Inspectors of 2013-2014. On 19.11.2014 (annexed herewith as Annexure-L) he gave an application to give him age relaxation of five years under the sports quota as per General Administration Department's Resolution No.CRR/1188-3644-G-2 dated 01.08.1990 (annexed herewith as Annexure-M) and No.CRR/102004/CM2/G-2 dated 05.12.2006 (annexed herewith as Annexure-N). This application was considered favourably and the candidate was allowed to participate in the present recruitment process. However, the candidate has failed in the physical examination in the present recruitment process. The candidate was to complete the 5000 meters run in a time limit of 25 minutes, which he could not do and was declared fail. After this only the candidate Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 gave an application on 04.01.2015 to consider him favourably for the earlier recruitment process also which had got completed way back in the year 2013 Thus, this present representation/ application dated 04.01.2015 was duly rejected on the grounds that he did not make any representation at the relevant time in 2013 and was making this representation more than one and half years after the whole process of recruitment got completed. The relevant meeting note dated 12.06.2013 of the Police Sub-inspector Recruitment Board is annexed herewith as Annexure-O. The old Board is also no longer functional, new Boards have been formed for the fresh recruitment process.
11. The petitioner has been rejected after the stage of written examination and has not been subjected to the interview examination and subsequent recruitment processes of 2011-2012. Therefore, the prayer petitioner to allow him to give benefit of appointment and to send him for training for Police Sub-Inspector is totally out of place."
5.3. Relying upon the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the petitioner was bound to be over age on the date of interview without the relaxation of three years as the petitioner was not in service of the Police Department which entitled him the three years relaxation. It was submitted that earlier recruitment process was concluded when the new recruitment process started.
5.4. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions :
(1) State of Uttar Pradesh and Others V/s. Pankaj Kumar rendered in Civil Appeal No.6860 of 2021 dated 18.11.2021.
(2) Sankar Mondal V/s. The State of West Bengal Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 and Others rendered in Civil Appeal No.1924 of 2010 dated 15.02.2022.
5.5. Relying upon the decision in the case of Pankaj Kumar (Supra) it was submitted that a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a timeline and the next recruitment process will also get affected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will be keep fluctuating. It was submitted that as averred in the affidavit-in-reply, pursuant to the recruitment process of 2011, the appointment orders are also issued and thereafter, the recruitment process of 2014 started.
5.6. It was submitted that similarly, in the case of Sankar Mondal (Supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, howsoever may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment. Relying on this decision of the Apex Court, it was pointed out that once the recruitment process of 2011 is closed, the petitioner is precluded from praying for getting any relief pursuant to that recruitment process and the petitioner therefore is not entitled to any relief claimed in this petition with regard to the recruitment process of 2011-2012.
Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner was entitled to appear for oral interview in the recruitment of 2011-2012 after he participated for the recruitment of 2014 or not.
7. The Direct Recruitment Rules for the recruitment of Constables (unarmed) and Police Sub-Inspector (unarmed) prescribes an upper age limit of minimum 18 years of Constable and minimum 28 years for Police Sub-Inspector. As per condition No.4 of the Recruitment Rules, the candidates who are in service of the Constable (unarmed), Assistant Sub-Inspector (unarmed) for the State Police Departments then such candidates are entitled to extension of three years in upper age limit.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was serving in Police Department at the relevant time in the year 2011-2012 and accordingly, was granted age relaxation to be eligible to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioner therefore, was permitted to appear in physical test and written test held in the year Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 2012. On clearing the physical and written test, the petitioner was called for oral interview on 25.05.2013 and was asked to produce relevant documents of his service in the Police Department on the date of interview but as the petitioner resigned from the Police Department in April, 2013, he could not produce the same and was disqualified on the ground of not eligible for relaxation in upper age limit and oral interview was not taken.
9. The petitioner thereafter appeared availing the relaxation of five years in upper age limit being a sports person in the recruitment of 2014. However, the petitioner could not clear the physical test. The petitioner therefore, made representation to consider his case for the recruitment of 2011-2012 granting him relaxation in upper age limit of three years or five years being a sport person.
10. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the relaxation of three years in upper age limit when he made an application for recruitment in the year 2011-2012 for the post of Police Sub- Inspector (unarmed) as per the Rule No.4 of the Recruitment Rules. However, respondent authorities have misinterpreted Rule No.4 of Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 Recruitment Rules denying the relaxation of three years in the upper age limit to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should be serving Police Department on the date of the interview.
11. As the petitioner was in service in the Police Department, in the year 2011-2012, he was entitled to the age relaxation of three years in the upper age limit. Merely because the petitioner participated in the recruitment of 2014, the petitioner cannot be precluded from agitating his grievance for not permitting him to participate in oral interview. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Purshottam (Supra) has held as under :
"4. In view of the rival submission the question that arises for consideration is whether a duly-selected person for being appointed and illegally kept out of employment on account of untenable decision on the part of the employer, can be denied the said appointment on the ground that the panel has expired in the meantime. We find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Deshpande appearing for the appellant inasmuch as there is no dispute that the appellant was duly selected and was entitled to be appointed to the post but for the illegal decision of the screening committee which decision in the meantime has been reversed by the High Court and that decision of the High Court has reached its finality. The right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel has in the meantime expired and the post has already been filled up by somebody else. Usurpation of the post by somebody else is not on account of any defect on the part of the appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, the appellant's right to be appointed to the post has been illegally taken away by the employer. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and judgment of the High Court and direct the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint the appellant to the post for which he was duly selected within two months from today. We make it clear that appointment would be prospective in nature."Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022
C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Doctor (Major) Meeta Sahai (Supra) in similar facts held that where the candidates alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, same cannot be condoned merely because candidates have partaken in it because constitution scheme is sacrosanct and its violation is impermissible. In the facts of the said case, the appellant applied pursuant to the advertisement issued for the post of General Medical Officer and was called for an interview where she was informed that no marks should be granted under the head of "work experience" as she lacked experience in hospital run by the Government of Bihar. The Apex Court considering the Rules 5 and 6 (iii) of the relevant Rules, held as under :
"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.
18. The question of permissibility of giving weightage for 'work experience' in government hospitals is also not the bone of contention in this case. Medicine being an applied science cannot be Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 mastered by mere academic knowledge. Longer experience of a candidate adds to his knowledge and expertise. Similarly, government hospitals differ from private hospitals vastly for the former have unique infrastructural constraints and deal with poor masses. Doctors in such non-private hospitals serve a public purpose by giving medical treatment to swarms of patients, in return for a meagre salary. Hence, when placing emphasis on the requirement of work experience, there is no dispute on such Page | 12 recognition of government hospitals and private hospitals as distinct classes. Instead such recognition ensures that the doctors recruited in not-so-rich states like Bihar have the requisite exposure to challenges faced in those regions.
19. The appellant has thus rightly not challenged the selection procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the respondents' interpretation of 'work experience' as part of merit determination. Since interpretation of a statute or rule is the exclusive domain of Courts, and given the scope of judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellant's challenge cannot be turned down at the threshold. However, we are not commenting specifically on the merit of appellant's case, and our determination is alien to the outcome of the selection process. It is possible post what is held hereinafter that she be selected, or not."
The Apex Court thereafter made literal and purposive interpretation of the Rules and held that Rules 5 and 6(iii) of the relevant Rules are construed to include the experience gained by Doctor in any Hospital run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentality as well as any other non-private Hospital (run by the Central Government, Municipality, Panchayati Raj Institutions and other public authorities) within the territory of Bihar. The respondents were accordingly directed to rework and prepare a Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 fresh merit list by granting due weightage to the appellant and other similarly placed candidates within two months.
13. In case of Saurav Yadav (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the Reservation Policy, held that the applicant 1 and other similarly situated candidates are entitled and eligible to be appointed against the general female category especially when they have not availed of any special benefits which may be entitled than from being considered against "open general category" as under :
"44. Having come to the conclusion that the Appellant No.1 and similarly situated candidates had secured more marks than the last candidates selected in 'Open/General Category', the logical consequence must be to annul said selection and direct the authorities to do the exercise de novo in the light of conclusions arrived at by us. However, considering the facts that those selected candidates have actually undergone training and are presently in employment and that there are adequate number of vacancies available, we mould the relief and direct as under:-
44.1. All candidates coming from 'OBC Female Category' who had secured more marks than 274.8928, i.e. the marks secured by the last candidate appointed in 'General Category-Female' must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.
44.2. Appropriate letters in that behalf shall be sent to the concerned candidates within four weeks.
44.3. If the concerned candidates exercise their option and accept the offer of employment, communications in that behalf shall be sent by the Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 concerned candidates within two weeks.
44.4. On receipt of such acceptance, the codal and other formalities shall be completed within three weeks.
44.5. Letters of appointment shall thereafter be issued within a week and the concerned candidates shall be given appropriate postings.
44.6. For all purposes, including seniority, pay fixation and other issues, the employment of such candidates shall be reckoned from the date the appointment orders are issued.
44.7. The employment of General Category Females with cut off at 274.8928 as indicated by the State Government in its affidavits referred to in paragraphs 5 and 8 hereinabove are not to be affected in any manner merely because of this judgment."
14. In view of the above legal position of law, as the petitioner has approached this Court within a period of two years after he was declared ineligible for the oral interview. The reliance placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in case of Pankajkumar (Supra) is not applicable as in the facts of the said case, it was held as under :
"11. Further, from the very nature of consideration made by the High Court, it is seen that it was the casual attitude of the respondent which had brought about the situation though the High Court has mildly put it as, inadvertence and provided an opportunity. It is no doubt true, that as contended by the respondent in the objection statement, an opportunity was granted to about 151 candidates to take part in the selection process as indicated in the notice dated 14.01.2019 issued pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions which were filed. It is to be noticed that the respondent was not vigilant at the earliest point in time but it is only after such consideration had been made by the Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 High Court and an opportunity was granted to certain other persons, the respondent had chosen to file the writ petition by merely contending that he had made a request to permit him to take part in the process on
15.01.2019 and he had not been permitted.
12. In that background, it is to be noted that another learned Single Judge of the High Court in a similar circumstance had dismissed Writ Petition No.3647 of 2019 filed by one Radha Sharma seeking similar relief and the said order was upheld by the Division Bench in Radha Sharma v. Staet of U.P. The order of the learned Single Judge was dated 13.05.2019. In any event, though indulgence was shown in the earlier cases, a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will keep fluctuating. The process herein had commenced in the year 2015 and the document verification along with the physical fitness test was held in 2018. Several candidates who were permitted pursuant to the order of the High Court had taken part in early January 2019. Since, sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make an exception in the case of the respondent at this stage as otherwise the trickle would continue."
15. Similarly, the decision in case of Sankar Mondal (Supra) relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, is also not applicable to facts of the present case in view of the following findings arrived at by the Supreme Court :
"The fact that the advertisement was of the year 1999 and we are in 2022, i.e. 24 years hence itself is an impediment in any relief to the appellant. However, that itself would not non-suit the appellant as learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is now about 45 years plus hence it is submitted that he still has time to serve out. The fact however, remains that the impediment in the way of the appellant was the lack of police verification Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 report which subsequently went against the appellant.
In our view, in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, howsoever may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment. In case of an advertisement dated 1999, the appellant cannot be permitted to plead that he was waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then woke up to file the O.A. before the State Administrative Tribunal. This itself is a ground to non-suit the appellant."
16. As the petitioner has approached to this Court in the reasonable time of two years and only because the petitioner participated in the recruitment of 2014, the grievance of the petitioner against not considering him eligible for the oral interview of recruitment of 2011- 2012 cannot be considered as impediment for granting any relief to the petitioner.
17. In view of the foregoing reasons and settled legal position, the petition is required to be allowed in part. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the petitioner eligible for the recruitment process for 2011-2012 from the stage of oral interview as the petitioner was disqualified and no oral interview was taken on 25.05.2013. The respondent-authorities shall call the petitioner for oral interview within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter consider the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner succeeds in oral Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/4856/2015 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 interview, he shall be appointed on the post of Head Constable/Police Sub-Inspector (unarmed) as per the recruitment 2011-2012 with a rider that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits from the date of appointment of other candidates. The appointment of the petitioner shall be effective from the date of his appointment order, if any, to be issued by the respondent-authority. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:36:16 IST 2022