Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar vs The Union Of India And 3 Others on 28 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1344
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35949 of 2015 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Respondent :- The Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Ambarish Chatterjee Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Singh,Praveen Kumar Srivastava,S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Devesh Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed against the exclusion of name of petitioner from the final select list on the post of constable in RPF, as the candidature of petitioner had been non suited with the remark, LTI not matching, which was communicated to petitioner on 28.01.2015.
Facts in brief are that in pursuance of advertisement no. 1 of 2011, petitioner applied for the post of constable, G.D. in RPF/ RPSF. Petitioner qualified written examination and was called for physical examination, thereafter, he was called for viva voce test and verification of his testimonials, but in final select list, his name did not appear and later came to know that he was not selected on the ground of LTI not matching.
It is contended that the application form for the said post was filled in the year 2011 and selection process was conducted in the year 2013 and petitioner had placed his left thumb impression but abruptly, he came to know that respondent authorities had not included him in the final select list on the ground of mismatching of left thumb impression.
Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 2813 of 2017, Ran Vijay Singh and 34 others vs. Union of India and 6 others, decided on 16.04.2018, wherein similar controversy was under challenge and this Court while quashing the order had directed the authorities concerned to verify the identity of each of petitioners by following principles of natural justice. Against the said order, Special Appeal Defective No. 44 of 2019 was filed by Union of India and three others, which was dismissed on 17.01.2019.
Reliance has also been placed on a decision passed in Writ-A No. 6424 of 2018, Sandeep Kumar Mishra and 3 others vs. Union of India and 2 others, decided on 14.11.2018, wherein the controversy was in regard to two signatures and therefore charge of impersonation stood proved. The Court held that lack of opportunity of hearing before taking any decision would amount to serious prejudice being caused to a candidate. The Court held as under:
"As is evident from the above, no arguments with respect to lack of opportunity of hearing or serious prejudice having been caused appears to have been addressed before the learned Judge who had proceeded to decide Abhishek Kumar.
Both the learned Judges who had decided Ran Vijay Singh and Tulasi Ram Prajapati had an occasion to test the rival submissions in great detail and it was only thereafter that the petitions were allowed. Both these two decisions were rendered subsequent to the decision rendered on Abhishek Kumar. Insofar as the decision of the Division Bench in Special Appeal taken against Abhishek Kumar is concerned suffice it to note that even before the Division Bench no submissions on merits including a violation of the principles of natural justice and serious prejudice were addressed.
Accordingly this Court is inclined to agree with the views expressed in Ran Vijay Singh and Tulasi Ram Prajapati which have been duly reiterated in Bhupendra Singh. Following those decisions, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24 June 2015 is hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the second respondent, who shall now be free to take a fresh decision bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove"
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that case of petitioner is distinguishable from that of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), as it was a case where FIR was lodged and the Court held that unilateral action of authorities was stigmatic in nature and thus granted benefit to candidates, but in the present case the order under challenge is only of LTI not matching and was not stigmatic.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that petitioner who had appeared in selection process had cleared written and physical examination but was not included in the select list merely on the basis of LTI not matching. Before such decision was taken by authorities, principle of natural justice warrants that opportunity should have been given to candidate before rejecting his candidature.
In view of decision of this Court in case of Sunil Kumar Mishra (supra), respondent no. 4 is directed to reconsider the matter of petitioner and after affording opportunity take decision.
It is expected that entire exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.1.2020 V.S.Singh