Meghalaya High Court
Shri Dharmendar Singh Chauhan vs The Union Of India on 17 April, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 177 of 2013
1. DHARMENDAR SINGH CHAUHAN,
S/o Shri Dilwar S. Chauhan,
Village: Dhouliyana,
Post Office: Timal Sain,
Tehsil: Lensdwone,
Dist: Pauri Garhwal,
Uttaranchal-246170.
I D No. 2790/CLK
2. ANIL SINGH CHAUHAN,
S/o Shri Dilwar S. Chauhan,
Village: Dhouliyana,
Post Office: Timal Sain,
Tehsil: Lensdwone,
Dist: Pauri Garhwal,
Uttaranchal-246170.
I D No. 4703/CLK
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Directorate General of Assam Rifles,
Laitkor, Shillong,
Meghalaya-793010.
3. The Brigadier (Pers),
H.Q. : Directorate General Assam Rifles,
Laitkor, Shillong-793010,
Meghalaya.
4. The Record Officer,
H.Q. : Directorate General Assam Rifles,
Laitkor, Shillong-793010,
Meghalaya.
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 1 of 9
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
Present
Mr. R. Jha ... Counsel for Petitioners
Mr. A. Khan ... Counsel for Respondents
Date of Hearing ... 12.04.2017
Date of Judgment ... 17.04.2017
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH (ORAL)
JUDGEMENT
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondents for issuance of joining letter and for appointing them as Clerks
2. Succinctly, the facts relevant leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioners applied for the post of Clerks with the Assam Rifles. After scrutiny of the necessary documents of the petitioners which was held on 14th September, 2011 at Guwahati.
3. The petitioners pursuant to the call letter by the respondents, attended the rally at Guwahati and they were successful in all the tests and examinations held at Guwahati.
4. The petitioners were further called for the conduct of the Trade Test and medical examination by the respondent authorities at Dimapur on 3rd December, 2011.
5. The petitioners appeared and successfully cleared the Trade Test and thereafter appeared on 4th December, 2011 for medical examination conducted by the respondents. However, the petitioner No. 1 was declared medically unfit due to flat foot whereas the petitioner No. 2 was successfully in all the test and examination. WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 2 of 9
6. An appeal was filed by the petitioner No. 1 before the respondent authorities for Appeal Medical Board wherein he had attached the Medical Fitness Certificate of the NEIGRIHMS as well as the Civil Hospital, Shillong. The respondents thereafter directed the petitioner to appear before the Relief Medical Board on 12th March, 2012 at Shillong.
7. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and he was referred to the Woodland Hospital for further Medical Examination. Upon examination by the Board, the petitioner was found fit. However, despite waiting for considerable period, the petitioner was not issued the joining letter.
8. The representations sent to the respondents authorities were also rejected. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioners, the present petition has been filed.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the final result sheet of Technical Trade of Recruitment in Assam Rifles for the post of Clerks held on 14th September, 2011, the total vacancies were 151 out of which 86 candidates were declared selected in the first list and 32 vacancies were filled by the Appeal Medical Board and the total number of selected candidates for the said rally was 118. It is further stated that still 33 vacancies were available in respect of rally dated 14th September, 2011.
10. It is also contended that on 25th September, 2012 the respondents advertised 328 vacancies for the post of Clerks and the result of the rally in respect thereof was declared on 14th May, 2013 and only 156 candidates were selected still lying 172 vacancies. WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 3 of 9
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that despite the vacancies being available with the respondents, the petitioners, who were successful in all the tests, were not given the appointment/joining letter which is arbitrary, illegal and smacks of mala fide attitude of the respondent authorities. Thus, the action of the respondents are liable to be struck down.
12. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in not issuing the joining letters to the petitioners, the action of the respondents is in contravention with the policies and guidelines issued by the respondent No. 1 in respect of recruitment of Constables in Central Para Military Force vide letter dated 25th June, 2009 wherein it was specifically stated that if found medically fit by appeal panel, the candidates will be recruited against wastage vacancies.
13. Learned counsel for petitioners further contended that the respondents have committed grave irregularities in respect of selection and miserably failed to conduct the selection in just, fair and transparent manner. The respondents have misused the powers vested on them by depriving the petitioners from their legitimate, legal and fundamental rights to be appointed to the post of Clerk.
14. It is further contended that the respondents' action in not appointing the petitioners deprive them of their life and livelihood and as such is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that since two vacancies were allotted to Uttrakhand for the post of Havildar (Clerk) in the recruitment rally and the said posts were filled up by the selected candidates according to final merit list. The petitioner No. 2 could not come up in the merit list and were placed WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 4 of 9 low in merit in comparison to selected candidates for which he could not be selected for enrolment in Assam Rifles.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the selection process was fair and the policies laid down by the Government of India have strictly followed. It is further stated that as per policy, the vacancies is a recruitment year calculated and recruitment made with reference to the allocations made to the States/UTs.
17. The respondents stated that based on the advertisement for recruitment rally, the petitioners attended the rally from 14th September, 2011 in the unreserved category where the petitioner No. 1 was declared unfit being flat foot and petitioners No. 2 was declared fit in the medical examination. It is further stated that the enrolment into Assam Rifles is subjected to medical fitness i.e. if found medically fit by the Appeal Board depend on the availability of vacancy allotted against each States/UTs and meeting the age criteria for which decision of the Directorate would be final.
18. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that petitioner No. 2 was medically examined and found fit and was considered in the merit list. However, since two vacancies was allotted to Uttrakhand for the post of Havildar (Clerk) in the said recruitment rally both the posts were filled by selected candidates according to final merit list. The petitioner No. 2 could not make it to the final merit list.
19. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 5 of 9
20. An advertisement for Assam Rifles Recruitment Rally at Dimapur (Nagaland) and Guwahati (Assam) from 14th September, 2011 onwards was published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar for enrolment of candidates belonging to different States/Union Territories. A perusal thereof shows that two vacancies were allotted to Uttrakhand for the post of Havildar (Clerk). Based on the said advertisement, the petitioners who were residents of District Pauri Garhwal (Uttrakhand) applied and attended the recruitment rally conducted from 14th September, 2011 onwards at Guwahati.
21. It is not disputed that the petitioners cleared the written examination and attended the Trade Test and initial medical examination on 3rd December, 2011. The petitioner No. 1, after medical examination, was declared unfit being flat foot whereas the petitioner No. 2 was declared fit in the said medical examination.
22. The petitioner No. 2, who was medically fit and cleared the other examination, could not get into the merit list prepared by the respondents. In the regard, the respondents have specifically stated in paragraph 7 of Affidavit-in-opposition as under:-
"7. That while denying the correctness of the statements made in Para 3 (viii), it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner No. 2 had also been medical examined and found medical FIT and was considered in the merit list. Since, 02 (two) vacancies was allotted to Uttrakhand for the post of Havildar (Clerk) in the said recruitment rally and both the post was filled up by selected candidates according to final merit list. The petitioner No. 2 could not come up in the merit list having scored lesser marks than selected candidates and thus placed low in merit. Therefore, he could not be selected for enrolment in Assam Rifles. The selection process is fair band the authority has strictly followed the policies laid down by the Government of India and no deviation in recruiting procedure was done as such the contention of the petitioner does not merit any consideration."
23. Insofar as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, on being declared unfit in the medical examination, he made an appeal for re- WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 6 of 9 examination by the Medical Board, which request was accepted by the respondents as the medical board after examination conducted on 12th March, 2012 found the petitioner No. 1 fit. While accepting the request of the petitioner No. 1 for examination by the Appeal Medical Board, the respondents vide letter dated 10th February, 2012 intimated to the petitioner No. 1 that his appeal for re-examination has been accepted, however, the enrolment into Assam Rifles is subject to medical fitness, i.e. if found medical fit by the Appeal Medical Board depend on availability of vacancy allotted against each States/UTs.
24. The respondents then prepared the final merit list of Appeal Medical Board in each category of each States/UTs. Since the petitioners had appeared in unreserved category and there were only two vacancies allotted for the Uttrakhand, the petitioners could not succeed to make it into the final merit list as they scored lesser marks than the selected candidates.
25. The respondents have placed on record the appointment letters of the two selected candidates which were issued on 13th February, 2012 that is much before the medical board was conducted on 12th March, 2012. The petitioners could not be selected due to low in merit list having scored lesser marks than the selected candidates.
26. In the case of 'Neelima Misra vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal', reported as 1990 SCR (2) 84, the Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot interfere in the selections made by a Selection Committee in the absence of proof of mala fides on contravention of statutory or binding rule or ordinance. It is further held that the High Court is not sitting in appeal to appreciate and scrutinize the entire record. It is only exercising it jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and while exercising it powers under Article 226 WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 7 of 9 of the Constitution of India the High Court will only examine whether the selection is in violation of statutory provisions or arbitrary and also is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or any of the fundamental rights. If there is any gross violation of any statutory principles/then only the High Court can interfere; otherwise the High Court ordinarily cannot interfere in the selections.
27. I have perused the records, produced by the respondents. The petitioners have failed to show that the candidates were not selected according to the merit. Once the selections are made by the following the valid selection process and by Experts as members of Selection Committee, the Court cannot interfere, unless grave injustice or violation of law is done.
28. There is nothing on record to show that there was any discrepancy in the selection process and the consequent result and appointments. The petitioners having participated and not succeeded, have leveled number of allegations. These are, however, not supported by an concrete evidence. There being no irregularity in conduct of selection, interference in writ jurisdiction of this court would not be called for. The selection took place way back in the year 2012 and the selected candidates may have been working on the posts for number of years by now.
29. Suffice it to say that selection committee was an expert body for the purpose of awarding marks to the candidates on the basis of their qualification, experience, merit and performance in interview. No defect or irregularity having been pointed out with the selection process, this court would refrain from interference in the same.
30. The Apex Court in the case of 'SECRETARY AND CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs HOWRAH GANATANTRIK WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 8 of 9 NAGRIK SAMITY AND OTHERS' reported as 2010 3 SCC 732 has observed that recommendation of the expert body should not have been turned down in the absence of any contrary provision in the relevant Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"37. The Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao held that (AIR p. 496, para 13) "normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts". It would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. This view has consistently been reiterated by this Court as is evident from the judgments in State of Bihar v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, Dalpat Abasaheb Sokunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Mktg. & Processing Coop. Ltd. V. State of Karnataka and Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust.
38. However, if the provision of law is to be read or understood or interpreted, the court has to play an important role. (P.M. Bhargave v. UGC and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v Chaudhari Devi Lal University.)"
31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
32. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Dated, the 17th April, 2017 V. Lyndem WP(C) No. 177 of 2013 Page 9 of 9