Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1222/2017 on 27 September, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/27
GAHC010123312017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C)/1211/2017
FARUK ALI AHMED
S/O SHRI ASKER ALI SK
R/O HOUSE NO. 8
AJANTA PATH MAYUR UPA PATH
HAIGAON CHARIALI
P.O. and P.S. HATIGAON
GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP
METRO ASSAM- 781038
EMAIL ID [email protected] MOBILE
PHONE NO. 9957528961.
..................Petitioner
-Versus-
1: THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI
HEADQUARTERS KHADYA SADAN 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW
DELHI - 110001.
2: THE CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA FCI HEADQUARTERS KHADYA SADAN 16-20
BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI- 110001 EMAIL IDS [email protected]
[email protected]
3: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PERSONNEL FOOD CORPORATION OF
INDIA FCI HEADQUARTERS KHADYA SADAN 16-20 BARAKHAMBA
LANE NEW DELHI - 110001 EMAIL ID [email protected]
4: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE NORTH EAST G.L. PUBLICATIONS BUILDING G.S. ROAD
ULUBARI GUWAHATI - 781007 EMAIL [email protected]
5: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL FOOD CORPORATION
OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE NORTH EAST G.L. PUBLICATIONS BUILDING
G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI - 781007 EMAIL ID
[email protected]
6: THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL FOOD
Page No. 2/27
CORPORATION OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE NORTH EAST G.L.
PUBLICATIONS BUILDING G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007
EMAIL ID [email protected]
7: MS. RITU MISHRA D/O SHRI ARUN MISHRA R/O HOUSE NO. 1223
NEAR WATER INTAKE SECTOR-1 IOC RENINERY NOONMATI
GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METROPOLITAN ASSAM- 781020
...................Respondents
WITH WP(C)/1222/2017 RAJU KUMAR S/O SHRI TILAK PRASAD, R/O H/NO.14, SOUTH BYE LANE -01, LACHIT NAGAR, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781007 ..................Petitioner
-Versus-
1: THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI HEADQUARTERS, KHADYA SADAN, 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-1 2: THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI FCI HEADQUARTERS KHADYA SADAN 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-1 3: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PERSONNEL FCI FCI HEADQUARTERS KHADYA SADAN 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-1 4: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NE FCI ZONAL OFFICE NORTH EAST G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GHY-7 5: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL FCI ZONAL OFFICE NORTH EAST G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GHY-7 6: THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL FCI ZONAL OFFICE NORTH EAST G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING G.S. ROAD Page No. 3/27 ULUBARI GHY-7 7: AMIT KUMAR S/O DILIP KUMAR GOSWAMI R/O STATION ROAD P.O. MASAURHI PATNA BIHAR PIN-80445 ...................Respondents Advocates :
Petitioner : Mr. P.D. Nair, Advocate
Respondent nos. 1-6 : Mr. P.K. Roy, Senior Advocate
Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, Advocate
Respondent no. 7 : Mr. M. Bhagabati, Advocate
Date of Hearing and Judgment & Order : 22.09.2022 & 27.09.2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER [Oral]
The genesis of the two writ petitions - W.P.[C] no. 1211/2017 and W.P.[C] no. 1222/2017 - is an Advertisement being Advertisement no. 4/2015 dated 30.05.2015 ['the Advertisement'], published by the respondent Food Corporation of India [FCI] for filling up of a number of posts of Management Trainees [General / Depot / Movement / Accounts / Technical / Civil Engineering / Mechanical Engineering / Electrical Engineering] and Manager [Hindi] in various depots and offices of the respondent FCI spread all over the country.
2. As the issue involved is common, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration at the stage of admission itself, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the exchange of pleadings in both the writ petitions are complete.
3. The two writ petitions are relatable to the post of Management Trainee [General] pertaining to the North East Zone and therefore, it is not necessary to advert to the other Page No. 4/27 posts for which applications were also called for by the Advertisement dated 30.05.2015. In so far as the posts of Management Trainee [General] for the North East Zone are concerned, the total nos. of posts sought to be filled up initially were 19 [Unreserved (UR) = 07, Other Backward Class (OBC) = 06, Scheduled Caste (SC) = 03 and Scheduled Tribe (ST) = 03]. By an Addendum, 2 [two] more posts in the Unreserved [UR] category were added. As a result of such addition, the total nos. of posts in the Unreserved [UR] category became 09 in nos. The two writ petitions are concerned with the posts of Management Trainees [General] for the candidates belonging to the Unreserved [UR] category, which was 09 in nos., and the OBC category, which were 06 in nos.
4. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1211/2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st petitioner', for easy reference] belongs to the Unreserved [UR] category whereas the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1222/2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'the 2 nd petitioner', for easy reference] belongs to the OBC category. Both the petitioners are employees of the respondent FCI. At the time of the Advertisement, they were serving in Assistant Grade-II [General] after joining in the services of the respondent FCI initially as Assistant Grade-III [General]. Both the petitioners responded to the Advertisement by submitting their respective applications online. The period of submission of application/registration online, as per the Advertisement, was from 02.06.2015 to 02.07.2015. The qualification/experience required for the post of Management Trainee [General], as on 01.08.2015, was a graduate degree or equivalent from recognized University with minimum 60% marks; or CA/ICWA/CS. There was no relaxation for the candidates belonging to Unreserved/OBC category in respect of minimum percentage of marks.
5. The Advertisement also notified about the process of selection. For the post of Management Trainee, the selection process consisted of Written Test [WT], Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I]. In the Advertisement, it was mentioned that the date of Written Test [WT] would be announced later and the candidates for the post of Management Trainee were to be shortlisted for Group Discussion [GD]/Interview [I] on criteria of 50% marks in Written Test [WT] for Unreserved category and 45% marks for all the reserved categories. The nos.
Page No. 5/27of candidates to be called for Group Discussion [GD]/Interview [I] shall generally be 5 [five] times and minimum 3 [three] times the number of vacancies on the basis of merit in the Written Test [WT] from amongst the qualified candidates, cadre wise/zone wise/category wise. A candidate had to appear in all the phases of the recruitment process to be eligible for selection.
6. The respondent FCI authorities scheduled the Written Test [WT] for the post of Management Trainee [General] of the North East Zone on 25.10.2015 and both the petitioners along with other candidates were issued Provisional Admit Cards to appear in the Written Test [WT]. The 1st petitioner was assigned Roll no. 5121104001132 & Registration no. 5111520038109 and the 2nd petitioner was assigned Roll no. 5121108002828 & Registration no. 5121520038710. Both the petitioners on the basis of the Provisional Admit Cards appeared in the Written Test [WT] on 25.10.2015. The respondent FCI authorities published a list of candidates, showing their Roll nos. [not in order of merit], shortlisted for the next stages, Document Verification and Group Discussion [GD]/Interview [I]. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners herein were shortlisted for the stage of Document Verification and Group Discussion [GD]/Interview [I]. The shortlisted candidates for Document Verification and Group Discussion [GD]/Interview [I] including the petitioners, were issued Call Letters. The two petitioners were asked by Call Letters dated 02.08.2016 to appear at the time, date and venue mentioned in the Call Letters, that is, at 9-00 a.m., on 23.08.2016 at the office of the Zonal Officer, North East of the respondent FCI at Guwahati. By the Call Letters, the shortlisted candidates were asked to bring the documents listed therein for verification in original along with one set of self-attested copies of each document, in support of their candidatures.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that at the stage of Document Verification, the documents furnished by the petitioners were verified and thereafter, they were allowed to take part in the subsequent stages, that is, Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I], which were also held on 23.08.2016. Upon completion of all the stages of the recruitment process, the respondent FCI authorities declared the results of selection in its official website on Page No. 6/27 21.12.2016 by publishing the following three lists :-
[a] List of candidates selected [in order of merit] against the vacancies for appointment to the post of Management Trainee [General];
[b] List of candidates in the Wait List [in order to merit]; and [c] List of candidates who appeared in Group Discussion / Interview and found eligible.
8. The petitioners could not find their names in any of the above 3 [three] lists. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with their non-selection, the petitioners sought various information from the respondent FCI authorities by filing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On receipt of the requisite information, as provided to them in response to their applications under the Right to Information Act, the petitioners came to know that their applications were rejected on the ground of failure to submit No Objection Certificate [NOC] in terms of the Advertisement no. 4/2015. Both the petitioners submitted representations before the Competent Authority through proper channel for consideration of their cases for the post of Management Trainee [General] on the premise that there was no default on the part of the petitioners in submission of their candidatures in response to the Advertisement no. 4/2015. In so far as the matter of issuance of NOC is concerned, the petitioners had represented that the same could not have been made a ground for rejection of their candidatures as they had scored the requisite marks in the selection process consisting of Written Test [WT], Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] in their respective category, that is, Unreserved [UR] category for the 1 st petitioner and OBC category for the 2nd petitioner and both were provided with the NOCs by the employer, which was the FCI itself.
9. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1211/2017, the petitioner apart from the official respondents has impleaded the last of the selected candidate in the Unreserved [UR] category, in order of merit, as the respondent no. 7. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no.
1222/2017, the petitioner apart from the official respondents has impleaded the last of the Page No. 7/27 selected candidate in the OBC category, in order of merit, as the respondent no. 7.
10. I have heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1-6 in both the writ petitions; and Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1211/2017. None has appeared for the respondent no. 7 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1222/2017, despite service of notice upon the said respondent.
11. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the 1 st petitioner scored 52.58 marks out of the total 90 marks to secure the 1 st position in order of merit for the 9 nos. of vacancies in the post of Management Trainee [General] advertised for the Unreserved [UR] category for the North East Zone and the last of the selected candidates in the Unreserved [UR] category i.e. the respondent no. 7 scored 48.17 marks. Similarly, the 2 nd petitioner scored 50.25 marks whereas the last of the 6 [six] nos. of selected candidates for the OBC category for the North East Zone i.e. the respondent no. 7 scored 47.67 marks. Thus, had their candidatures been not rejected on grounds which, according to him, are arbitrary, both the petitioners ought to have been selected and appointed for the post of Management Trainee [General] in their respective categories. It is his submission that the respondent FCI authorities had wrongly resorted to Clause 8 in the Advertisement no. 4/2015 to reject the candidatures of the petitioners whereas Clause 8 could not have been read independently in isolation by ignoring Clause 36 of the Advertisement. It is his further contention that for the Departmental candidates, the condition of eligibility regarding production of No Objection Certificate [NOC] would become operational only after the stage of shortlisting of candidates on the basis of the results in the Written Test [WT] was over. Mr. Nair has submitted that in any view of the matter, both the petitioners had completed the requisite formalities for obtaining No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the employer by submitting applications before the last date of submission of online application, 02.07.2015 and as such, it was not open for the respondent FCI authorities to reject the candidatures by resorting to such specious ground. It is his submission that the 1 st petitioner submitted his Page No. 8/27 application for the NOC on 19.06.2015 which was much prior to the last date of submission of online application. By referring to the documents annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1211/2017, he has submitted that the respondent authorities started the processing for the NOC as early as on 25.06.2015 in a favourable manner. From the documents, it is clearly discernible that there was no objection from the respondent FCI authorities with regard to the participation of the 1 st petitioner in the selection process undertaken pursuant to the Advertisement no. 4/2015. Mr. Nair has submitted in relation to the 2nd petitioner that the 2nd petitioner had also submitted his application for NOC on 15.06.2015 and the said application received due consideration at the end of the respondent FCI authorities. It is true that none of the two petitioners was not in possession of the NOCs as on 02.07.2015, but such situation had become immaterial as the two petitioners were allowed to take part in the Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] after the Document Verification stage. He has strenuously submitted that the submission of a No Objection Certificate [NOC] cannot be a rigid requirement for rejection of the candidatures of the two petitioners for the very fact that both the petitioners were employees of the respondent FCI and their applications for NOCs received positive consideration from a period anterior to 02.07.2015.
12. Mr. Nair has referred to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of one Shri R. Rajesh Kumar which, according to him, was of a similarly situated candidate like the two petitioners herein. He has relied on two decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP-1327-2017 [Gurtej Singh vs. Food Corporation of India and another], decided on 08.05.2018, and of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 8223/2017 and W.M.P. no. 8978/2017 [R. Vimalkanth vs. Food Corporation of India], decided on 17.12.2019. He has also referred to the decisions in Charles K. Skaria and others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others; reported in [1980] 2 SCC 752; Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others; reported in [2005] 9 SCC 779; Food Corporation of India vs. Rimjhim, reported in [2019] 5 SCC 793; Ram Deen Maurya [Dr.] vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ; reported in [2009] 6 SCC 735; and Union of India and others vs. Pritilata Nanda , reported in [2010] 11 SCC 674; and Sanjay Kumar and another vs. Union of India and others , reported in 2007 [1] Page No. 9/27 GLT 619.
13. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent FCI authorities has submitted that the two petitioners herein had merely intimated the employer by their applications about their likely participation in the recruitment process which was initiated by the Advertisement no. 4/2015 for the post of Management Trainee [General] and by no stretch, the said applications can be taken as applications for issuance of NOCs. It is his contention that there was no ambiguity in the terms and conditions laid down in the Advertisement no. 4/2015 and the factum of possession of a NOC issued on or before last date of submission of online application, 02.07.2015 was an essential condition of eligibility for all candidates, whether they were employees of the Central Government/State Government/Public Undertakings or the employees of the FCI. There could not have been any distinction and exception for the employees of the respondent FCI. At every stage of the recruitment process, it was specifically notified that the candidates, who fulfilled all the eligibility criteria laid down in the Advertisement, only would be offered appointment and the candidates who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria would not have any right to claim appointment. It is his contention that the question about the possession of the NOC was raised during the recruitment process and the Competent Authority in the respondent FCI had in clear terms conveyed that the provisions/terms and conditions stipulated in the detail Advertisement of the recruitment process shall have to be abided by in strict terms while scrutinizing the documents/credentials of all the candidates including the Departmental ones. Since the cases of the two petitioners entailed rejection on the ground of non-possession of NOC on a date on or before 02.07.2015, the matter of their securing the requisite marks cannot be a factor for consideration. It is his further contention that there were 41 nos. of candidates including the two petitioners, whose candidatures were rejected on the same ground of non-possession of No Objection Certificate [NOC] and therefore, no exception can be claimed by the petitioners on the ground of discrimination as isolated ones.
13.1. In support of his submissions, Mr. Roy has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited and others vs. H.L. Kaveri and others, reported in [2020] 3 SCC 108.
Page No. 10/2714. Mr. Bhagabati, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1211/2017 has adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent FCI authorities. Mr. Bhagabati has further submitted that the respondent no. 7 after being appointed on 07.07.2017, has been serving in the respondent FCI till date. Since the rejection of the 1st petitioner was on the ground of non-fulfillment of the eligibility criterion regarding non-possession of the No Objection Certificate [NOC], as laid down in the Advertisement, it is not open for the 1 st petitioner to seek rejection of the candidature of the respondent no. 7. The respondent no. 7 had, in the meantime, got appointed to the post of Manager [General] w.e.f. 11.09.2017 on probation and she had completed the probation period satisfactorily on 10.09.2018. On satisfactory completion of probation period, the respondent no. 7 got confirmed in the post of Manager [General] w.e.f. 11.09.2018 in terms of the Food Corporation of India [Staff] Regulations, 1971.
15. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their respective pleadings. I have also considered the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. The petitioner has referred the two cases titled Shri R. Rajesh Kumar [supra] and R. Vimalkanth [supra], decided by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and one case in Gurtej Singh [supra] decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in respect of recruitment processes, which were either related to the same advertisement or of similar nature.
16.1. The Hon'ble Madras High Court entertained a batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 5779 & 5780/2017 and W.M.P. Nos. 6180 & 6181/2017 [Shri R. Rajesh Kumar vs. the Executive Director, Food Corporation of India (FCI)] preferred by Shri R. Rajesh Kumar. In an order dated 06.06.2017, the Hon'ble Madras High Court had held a view that though Shri R. Rajesh Kumar failed to produce the No Objection Certificate [NOC] but the fault was not attributable to him as it was owing to the administrative delay on the part of the respondent authorities, Page No. 11/27 the NOC was not issued. The Hon'ble Court found substance in the submission for the reason that the petitioner therein had submitted his application seeking NOC on 19.06.2015, which was within time, and therefore, the respondent FCI authorities realizing the lapse committed by them, issued a Corrigendum dated 06.09.2017 stating that due to administrative reasons and exigencies, the required NOC could not be issued within the specified time and it could be issued only on 17.07.2015 and that by issuing a Corrigendum, the Department stated that the NOC issued on 17.07.2015 shall be treated to have been issued retrospectively w.e.f. 02.07.2015. The Hon'ble Madras High Court was of the view that a reading of Clause 36 of the Advertisement would go to show that for Departmental candidates, the last date of submission of the NOC was only on 25.10.2015, which was the date of the Written Test [WT]. Considering the fact that there were 2 [two] vacancies and the petitioner therein was placed at serial no. 3 in the waiting list, the Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, if the candidates at serial nos. 1 & 2 did not join duty, with further observation that if there was any alteration in the waiting list of the candidates, due to availability of future vacancy, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner therein in terms of the rank in the waiting list. The decision rendered on 06.06.2017 was carried to the Division Bench by the respondent authorities in the FCI by intra-court appeals, W.A. nos. 1009 & 1010 of 2017, C.M.P. nos. 14219 & 14220 of 2017. The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeals by an Order dated 29.08.2017, after taking note of the observations made by the learned Single Judge. It had further observed that it was to the authority take immediate steps to issue the appointment orders to the eligible candidates, without any further delay and only in the event of expressing non-willingness to join in duty in writing, by the candidates at serial nos. 1 & 2, then only the writ petitioner therein would be considered for the vacant post as a consequence of non-reporting for duty by the candidates at serial nos. 1 & 2. When the respondent FCI authorities preferred a special leave petition, Special Leave Petition [Civil] Diary No[s]. 44342/2018, a two-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 02.01.2019 had recorded its disinclination to interfere with the orders of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and accordingly, the special leave petitions were dismissed. The Order dated 02.01.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further observed that the question of law was kept open.
Page No. 12/2716.2. In R. Vimalakanth [supra], the petitioner was working in the post of Assistant Grade-II Technical and he responded to an Advertisement dated 02.06.2015 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Management Trainee [Technical]. As per the condition in the application, he made an application to issue 'No Objection Certificate [NOC]' from the 2 nd respondent therein, through proper channel on 03.06.2015. He was permitted to attend Written Test [WT]. Without furnishing the NOC, he was called for Group Discussion [GD] and thereafter, he appeared for Interview [I] on 30.06.2016. At that stage, the petitioner obtained the NOC from the 2nd respondent and submitted to the 1 st respondent. He secured 53.63 marks in the recruitment process. When the petitioner's name was not found in the final results for the reason that the NOC was submitted after the closing date, the petitioner preferred the writ petition. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent had to issue the NOC within a time so as to enable the petitioner to submit the NOC as per the condition in the Advertisement but the 2 nd respondent had delayed the process of issuing the NOC to the petitioner despite it was recommended by the Area Manager of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner made declaration that he was in possession of the NOC from the employer on or before the closing date of application i.e. on 02.07.2015. The ground urged on behalf of the FCI was that as the petitioner was not in possession of the NOC at the time of submission of the application, his candidature had rightly been rejected. After taking note of Clause 8 and Clause 36, which were pari materia to Clause 8 and Clause 36 involved therein, the Hon'ble Court found that the petitioner had submitted an application for issuance of NOC from the 2nd respondent on 03.06.2015 and the concerned Area Manager recommended for issuance of the NOC with his comments but the 2 nd respondent did not furnish the NOC on or before the closing date of application i.e. on 02.07.2015. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] without rejection of his application by the respondent FCI authorities at that stage and the petitioner produced the NOC on 27.04.2016 thereafter, which was beyond the closing date of application. The Hon'ble Court by referring to the case of Gurtej Singh [supra] of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had observed that in Gurtej Singh, the prayer of the petitioner [Gurtej Singh] was allowed on the ground that the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-submission of the NOC at the relevant point of time. When the delay was on the part of the competent Page No. 13/27 authority, the Hon'ble Court had observed therein, the rejection of appointment to the petitioner therein, who was a departmental candidate, by relying upon Clause 8 of the Advertisement was not proper since the instructions given in Clause 8 was for the candidates applying for other departments and it was observed that Clause 8 was to be construed as only directory and not mandatory. It was observed that the 2 nd respondent, who was an Issuing Authority of the NOC and being a Subordinate Officer to the 1 st respondent having the knowledge of the requirement about submission of the NOC to the 1 st respondent, failed to issue the NOC within a stipulated time to the petitioner and by considering Clause 36 of the Advertisement, the Hon'ble Court had held that it was lapse on the part of the 2 nd respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the laxity committed by the 2 nd respondent, who was also under the 1 st respondent. Clause 8 of the Advertisement was held to be not mandatory and the same could be construed only as directory. It was observed that since the petitioner being a departmental candidate, was in possession of the NOC before shortlisting of the candidates and produced the same at the time of Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I], the Hon'ble Court was of the opinion that there was no justification in rejecting the appointment of the petitioner by the 1 st respondent by relying upon the Clause 8 of the Advertisement on the ground that the NOC was obtained belatedly.
16.3. In Gurtej Singh, the original petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant General Manager [General Administration] in the OBC category, advertised vide Advertisement no. 5/2016-FCI. The original petitioner was a departmental candidate. The last date of submission of application against the Advertisement was 14.08.2015. The candidature of petitioner was rejected on the ground that No Objection Certificate [NOC] was not supplied to him on or before the last date, whereas, he made the application for NOC on 29.07.2015. The NOC was finally issued on 19.08.2015. Observing that the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-submission of NOC on or before the last date i.e. 14.08.2015, the writ petition was allowed.
16.4. In Gurtej Singh [supra], the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the petitioner Page No. 14/27 applied for a No Objection Certificate [NOC] on 29.07.2015 and laxity was on the part of the respondent FCI authority to issue the NOC and therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-submission of NOC within time. The decision in Gurtej Singh [supra] was referred to and relied upon in R. Vimalkanth [supra]. Though the detail facts were not delineated regarding the contents of the application seeking NOC by the original petitioner therein, it can, however, be clearly found out that in all the three cases, that is, Shri R. Rajesh Kumar, Gurtej Singh and R. Vimalkanth, the Hon'ble Court had observed that the petitioner therein had submitted his application for the NOC before the last date of submission of the application.
16.5. In Charles K. Skaria [supra], the advertisement was for admission in post graduate courses in the medical colleges in the State of Kerala. An applicant for post-graduate degree course was supposed to earn an added advantage of diploma only if he had completed the diploma examination on or before the last date for application, the result of the examination was also published before that date and the candidate's success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the selection committee, before completion the selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. A certificate of the diploma was to be attached to the application for admission was held to be directory as the concerned candidate therein fulfilled the conditions mentioned above. It is in the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. The Court has observed the primary question ought to have been raised that had the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is held to be secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first aspect would be illegal, but not so on the second aspect. It is further held that the emphasis is on the diploma and the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. The principle laid down in Charles K. Skaria [supra] has been followed in Dolly Chhanda. In Dolly Chhanda, it is held that possession of requisite qualifications on date required is distinct from submission of proof of same by date required. The general rule is that the eligibility qualification must be possessed on the last date fixed for the purpose of applying for any course of study or a post for availing the benefit of reservation or weightage, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. Possession of requisite qualification[s] by Page No. 15/27 the date fixed has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets, etc. and there can be no relaxation in regard to possession of requisite eligibility qualification by date fixed. It is also observed that depending on the facts of the case, there can be relaxation in the matter of submission of proof of possession of the said qualification. Denial of appointment to the respondent-petitioner on the ground that she did not produce certificate of one year experience was the issue in Rimjhim [supra]. Requirement in the Advertisement dated 14.02.2015 was one year experience of Translation from English to Hindi and vice versa. The dispute arose when the respondent FCI authorities did not accept a relieving-cum-experience letter dated 27.08.2014 along with the application, submitted by the original writ petitioner as not a certificate of one year experience of Translation from English to Hindi and vice versa. The original writ petitioner was not informed/told at the time of verification of the documents that the letter dated 27.08.2014 was not sufficient to establish the essential requirement of one year experience. The original writ petitioner was also not informed/told at the time of verification of documents on 18.01.2016 that the certificate of one year experience was lacking. Applying the principle laid down already in Charles K. Skaria and Dolly Chhanda, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the action of the respondent FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner was rightly set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the direction to the Hon'ble High Court, whereby, the respondent FCI authorities were directed to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on merits for the post of Assistant Grade-II [Hindi], if all the other conditions stood satisfied.
16.6. In Pritilata Nanda [supra], the appointment of the original writ petitioner was denied on the ground that she was not sponsored by any employment exchange though she satisfied all the other requirements laid down in the Advertisement. There was a requirement of sponsorship by the employment exchange. It is in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the condition in the advertisement regarding such sponsorship is not a mandatory condition incorporated in the concerned statute viz. the Employment Exchanges [Compulsory Notification of Vacancies] Act, 1959 as there is nothing in the statute which obligates the employer to appoint only those who are sponsored by the employment exchange. It is in the context of the provisions of the Employment Exchanges [Compulsory Page No. 16/27 Notification of Vacancies] Act, 1959, it is observed that once a candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process, it is not open to turn around the selection of the candidature on specious ground like non-sponsorship by the employment exchange, though the candidate has met all the other requirements. The denial of appointment in that case has been held to be an illegality.
16.7. In Ram Deen Maurya [Dr.] [supra] the object and the purpose of exercise of routing an employee's application through the proper channel has been discussed. The mandatory requirement for an employee to write an application to the Higher Officer through the Head of the Department where he or she is working is for the purpose of maintaining the discipline in the Institution or the Organization. In that case, the manner and method of submitting an application for transfer came to be considered in the context of a set of statutory rules viz. Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005 and interpreting such provisions, it has been held that the requirement of submission of the application to the Director, Higher Education is mandatory but the other three requirements, i.e. submission of the application through management after obtaining NOC; requiring the Director to submit his recommendation to the Government within one month; and conferring discretion from the Government to take decision on the basis of the recommendation or on its own are held to be directory. Thus, in both Pritilata Nanda and Ram Deen Maurya (Dr.) [supra], the interpretations of statutory to provisions/statutory rules were involved.
16.8. In Sanjay Kumar [supra], the petitioners were employees in the post of LDC under the respondent Border Roads Organisation [BRO] and they sought employment outside the BRO. The respondent authorities initially forwarded the applications and issued 'no objection' but subsequently, they refused to release the petitioners on the plea of shortfall of staff strength. It is observed that therein that once an application is forwarded to the outside agency involved and the employee concerned is selected, he ought to be released unless very exceptional circumstances exists to the contrary. The common grievance was that the petitioners were not released by the respondent authorities to take up employment as a Lower Division Clerk [LDC] with the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal following their selection therefore. The petitioners were found to have submitted their Page No. 17/27 applications before the superior authorities and the applications were attached to the outside employer. Their applications were processed at different levels and following a scrutiny thereof, they were forwarded to the outside employer. The concerned authority also issued No Objection Certificate [NOC] in favour of the petitioners approving their endeavour to take up new assignment with the Tribunal in the event of their selection.
17. I have gone through the afore-mentioned decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their contentions keeping in view the trite proposition that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom and even a slight distinction in fact or an additional or different fact may make a lot of difference in the decision making process. It is trite to say that a decision of a High Court on a particular point of law though has a persuasive value, may not be binding for another High Court unlike a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is relevant to notice that when the case of R. Rajesh Kumar [supra] reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while not interfering with the order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court had left the question of law open. While dismissing the special leave petition preferred by the respondent FCI, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not assign any reason for rejecting the petition for special leave by passing a speaking order pertinently observing that the question of law would be left open. In view of the principle laid down in Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in [2000] 6 SCC 359, it is an order where the doctrine of merger would not apply. Further, there is no wholesome similarity in the cases of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, referred above, with the cases of the petitioners herein, as would be discernible from the discussion below.
18. At the inception, it is necessary to refer the relevant clauses in the Advertisement dated 30.05.2015 to which the parties have extensively referred to. For ready reference, Clause 8, Clause 22, Clause 23, Clause 30, Clause 31, Clause 32 and Clause 36 are quoted in verbation hereinbelow :-
"[8] Employees of the Central/State Govt./Public Sector Undertakings and Departmental candidates should apply Online. Their candidature is subject to Page No. 18/27 fulfillment of the essential eligibility criteria and ensure that they are in possession of 'No Objection Certificate' from their employer on or before the closing date which shall be required to be sent/uploaded along with other essential enclosures in case of their shortlisting on the basis of the Written Test at the designated Address/Website which shall be informed/notified through the designated website [www.fcijobsportal.com].
[22] Mere submission of application and fulfilling the eligibility conditions gives no right to any person for appearing in Written Test etc. [23] Qualifying in the Written Test, Group Discussion and Interview for any post without fulfillment of eligibility conditions will not confer any claim to the candidate for final selection for the post.
[30] Candidate must ensure to have fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, viz., qualification, experience, age, etc. as on 01.08.2015. Candidates should satisfy themselves that they fulfill the required qualification, experience, and age, etc. before applying for the post. In case it is found that the information furnished by a candidate is defective in any manner or has been deliberately suppressed, the candidature will be summarily rejected as and when it comes to the notice of the Management. The candidates are advised to satisfy themselves fully about the correctness of the information furnished. The candidature would be rejected if found ineligible at any stage.
[31] Issue of Admit Card for the Written Test & calling for Interview & Group Discussion does not confer any right of acceptance of candidature and should not be construed as an acknowledgement of fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post. It does not give indefeasible right to an individual for employment with FCI.
[32] Candidates, who fulfill all the eligibility criteria, will be issued Offer of Appointment as per merit list and as per vacancies.
[36] Departmental candidates may note that their candidature is subject to possession of 'No Objection Certificate' from their employer, which shall be required to be sent/uploaded along with other essential enclosures in case of their shortlisting on the basis of the Written Examination at the designated Page No. 19/27 address/website, which shall be informed/notified through the designated website www.fcijobsportal.com."
19. In the case in hand, no statutory provision is involved in the process of recruitment initiated by the Advertisement no. 4/2015. It is the terms and conditions specified in the Advertisement no. 4/2015, which had regulated the process of recruitment. A perusal of Clause 8 and Clause 36 of the advertisement unerringly goes to indicate that the employees of the Central Government/State Government/Public Sector Undertakings/ Departmental candidates have to possess a No Objection Certificate [NOC] from their employers on or before the closing date which was 02.07.2015. There is no ambiguity in that respect and the factum of possession of a No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the employer was an essential eligibility criterion. It was, however, not a requirement to attach such a NOC obtained from the employer on or before 02.07.2015 with the submission of the application online. The Advertisement had made it clear that the candidature of the employees of the Central Government/State Government/Public Sector Undertakings/ Departmental candidates from the respondent FCI would be subject to satisfaction of the essential eligibility criterion of possession of a NOC form their respective employer on or before 02.07.2015. In view of such unambiguity and specific terms, this Court is not able to persuade itself to accept the view expressed by the other Hon'ble High Courts regarding directory nature of the referred clauses in the Advertisement. There are other cogent reasons also for arriving at such view, which are alluded hereinafter.
19.1. The said essential condition was also reiterated in the form of a declaration in the application form in the following manner :-
"6. I hereby declare that there is no Vigilance/Disciplinary case pending against me. I am in possession of 'No Objection Certificate' from my employer which shall be required to be sent along with other essential enclosures in case of my shortlisting on the basis of the Written Test at the designated Address which shall be informed/notified through the designated website [www.fcijobsportal.com]."Page No. 20/27
19.2. In the General Rules and Instructions for the candidates contained in the Provisional Admit Cards issued to the candidates for the Written Test [WT] scheduled on 25.10.2015, it was specifically informed that the candidates applying for examination should ensure that he/she fulfilled the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. The admission at the stage of examination for which he/she was admitted viz. Written Test [WT] would be purely provisional, subject to his/her satisfying the eligibility conditions. If on verification at any time before or after the Written Test [WT], it was found that the candidates did not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, his/her candidature for the examination shall stand cancelled without any notice or further reference. Issuance of the Admit Cards for the Written Test [WT] did not confer any right of acceptance of candidature and should not be construed as an acknowledgment of fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
19.3. When the Call Letters for Document Verification, Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] were issued to the petitioners on 02.08.2016, the petitioners along with other candidates were instructed to bring a number of documents in original including the NOC. It was mentioned therein that if the candidate was employed with the Central Government/State Government/Public Sector Undertakings then the candidate had be ensure that he was in possession of NOC issued from the employer on or before 02.07.2015 i.e. the closing date and the candidate was to submit it in original during Document Verification.
19.4. Though a condition was there that if the candidate did not produce the original certificate in support of his claim, he would not be allowed to appear for Document Verification, Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] and no further opportunity would be given to him to appear for the same at a later stage the two petitioners were allowed to participate in the subsequent stage like Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] in the recruitment process despite their failure to submit a No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the employer issued on a date on or before 02.07.2015. Though the petitioners have claimed that permitting them to participate in the subsequent stages in the recruitment process would amount to relaxation of the condition of submission of the NOC of a date on or before 02.07.2015, the same cannot not be countenanced in view of Clause 31 of the advertisement, Page No. 21/27 wherein, it was stated in clear terms that issuance of Admit Cards for the Written Test [WT] and calling for Group Discussion [GD] and Interview [I] would not confer any right of acceptance of candidature and should not be construed as an acknowledgement of fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post and it would not give indefeasible right to an individual for employment with the respondent FCI.
20. At this juncture, it is of utmost relevance to refer to the applications submitted by the two petitioners before the higher authorities in the respondent FCI with regard to their respective participation in recruitment process initiated by the Advertisement dated 30.05.2015.
20.1. The 1st petitioner had submitted an application on 19.06.2015 before the General Manager [Zone], FCI, Zonal Office [NE], Guwahati in the following manner :-
20.2. The 2nd petitioner had also submitted an application on 15.06.2015 before the same authority in the following manner : -Page No. 22/27
21. From the letter dated 19.06.2015 of the 1st petitioner, it can be clearly seen that the 1st petitioner had merely informed the higher authority that he would like to apply for the post of Management Trainee [General] and he wrote the letter with the request to record that as his formal intimation. There was a request that a NOC be provided to him when required.
From the application dated 15.06.2015 of the 2 nd petitioner, it can be clearly seen that by the said application, he had merely intimated his higher authority that he had applied for the post of Management Trainee [General] in response to the Advertisement no. 4/2015 for better career progression and the said application should be considered as an intimation for applying to the said Advertisement.
22. Thus, from the text and tenor of the two applications, it cannot be said that the two petitioners herein had made any application for issuance of NOC for the purpose and with the intention of obtaining it on or before the last date of submission of the applications i.e. 02.07.2015, as required by the Clause 8 and Clause 36 in the Advertisement. The respondent Page No. 23/27 FCI authorities after receipt of the two applications, had processed the same at different stages. In respect of the 1st petitioner, the authorities vide their endorsements made in relation to the 1st petitioner's application dated 19.06.2015 had observed that they could issue the NOC when required. In relation to the 2 nd petitioner's application dated 15.06.2015, which appeared to have been received on 19.06.2015. The authorities had observed in their endorsements made in relation to the application that they could issue the NOC when required. It is neither discernible from any materials on record nor it is the case of the petitioners that they had insisted or pursued the matter of issuance of NOC at any time on or before 02.07.2015 for issuance of the NOCs in their favour. The 1 st petitioner was found to have made an application for issuance of the NOC only on 08.08.2016, which was after more than one year from the closing date of application, 02.07.2015. The 2 nd petitioner was found to have made an application for issuance of the NOC only on 03.08.2016, which was also more than one year from the last date of submission of application, 02.07.2015. It is iterated that any candidate who was either a State Government employee or a Central Government employee or an employee of a Public Sector Undertakings or an employee of the FCI, was required to obtain the NOC from his respective employer on or before 02.07.2015. Any such candidate had to be in possession of the NOC issued on or before 02.07.2015, which was an essential eligibility criterion as per the Advertisement no. 4/2015. It was the NOC issued on or before 02.07.2015, which could have produced at the stage of Document Verification and not any NOC which was issued on any date after 02.07.2015.
23. There are two other aspects of the matter. It is settled proposition that an administrative authority is bound by the norms, standards and procedures laid down by it and it is not permissible for such authority to make a departure in an arbitrary manner. In the event of any departure from the professed norms, standards and procedures, such an action will incur invalidation and will have the effect of vitiating the process. The respondent authorities have asserted that during the process of recruitment, a recruitment agency, M/s TCS Limited was appointed to complete the recruitment process in terms of the Advertisement no. 4/2015. During the stage of scrutiny, etc., it was found that many departmental candidates did not possess with them the required NOC from their employers as Page No. 24/27 on the closing date i.e. 02.07.2015 as per the Advertisement no. 4/2015. A reply was sought by the recruitment agency from the Competent Authority in the respondent FCI as to how the candidatures of such candidates were to be considered. The Competent Authority in the respondent FCI by its Communications, dated 09.11.2016 and dated 22.12.2016, had clarified in clear terms that it would be the terms and conditions/provisions already stipulated in the Advertisement no. 4/2015, which had to be adhered to in strict terms while scrutinizing the documents/ credentials of all the candidates including the departmental ones. During the scrutiny/verification, the respondent FCI authorities rejected the candidatures of a total of 41 nos. of candidates including the two petitioners herein, on the ground of non-possession of a No Objection Certificate [NOC] from their respective employer from a date on or before 02.07.2015. The number of candidates whose candidatures entailed rejection on the ground of non-possession of the NOC were as follows : 20 nos. from South Zone, 7 nos. from North Zone, 9 nos. from West Zone, 4 nos. from North East Zone, which included the two petitioners; and 1 no. from East Zone. Out of those 41 nos. of candidates, 19 nos. of candidates were departmental candidates of the respondent FCI. It is not the case of the petitioners that candidature of any of the other 17 nos. of departmental candidates from the respondent FCI was considered later on in relaxation of the condition regarding the NOC. It is also not the case of the petitioner that candidature of any of the other candidates, out of the 41 nos. less 19 nos. from the FCI, was considered in relaxation of the condition relating to possession of the NOC on or before 02.07.2015. In such view of the matter, any direction to the respondent FCI to consider the case of the two petitioners in relaxation of the essential eligibility condition regarding possession of the NOC on or before 02.07.2015, in the absence of any element of arbitrariness, would result in discrimination to the other 39 nos. of departmental candidates whose candidatures were also rejected on the ground of non- possession of the NOC on or before 02.07.2015. The same is also a facet of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24. It is already observed hereinabove that the possession of the NOC issued on or before the last date of submission of application, 02.07.2015 was an essential condition of eligibility in the recruitment process initiated by the Advertisement no. 4/2015. Any direction at this stage to the respondent FCI authorities to consider the case of the two petitioners without Page No. 25/27 the essential condition of eligibility with regard the NOC would clearly result in denial of the benefit of participation in the recruitment process to other similarly situated candidates in the recruitment process who might, in view of such essential condition to eligibility, not have applied in response to the Advertisement no. 4/2015. The same is another facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
25. It is settled position that a person who does not possess the requisite qualification or does not fulfill the essential eligibility condition cannot apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the terms and conditions of the recruitment. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Granting any benefit to an ineligible candidate would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a back bone of the fundamental right under the Constitution of India. In the cases of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was laxity on the parts of the administrative authorities therein which had resulted in non-issuance of the NOCs and no fault was found attributable to the candidates who were found applying for the NOCs well within time. In the case in hand, it cannot be said from the text and tenor of the applications of the two petitioners, quoted in verbatim above, that there was laxity on the administrative authorities in issuing the NOCs before the last date, 02.07.2015 for the reason that the petitioners had never applied for NOCs before the last date, 02.07.2015. Rather, the reason for non-issuance of the NOCs was solely attributable to the two petitioners. Since the factum of possession of the NOC, issued on or before 02.07.2015, was the essential eligibility condition here, the principle which can be culled out from the other decisions cited is not found of any assistance to the case of the petitioners.
26. The aforesaid view is also fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited [supra]. In that case, the first respondent, who was a women and a member of the Scheduled Caste [SC] category, applied in response to an advertisement published for filling up two vacancies of Senior Assistant and 8 vacancies of Junior Assistant by an Advertisement dated 11.11.2013. A Page No. 26/27 candidate was required to furnish a certificate of work experience of 3 years/2 years for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant. Admittedly, the first respondent did not enclose the experience certificate of the required period along with the application form. The first respondent secured 65.43 percent of marks in the qualifying examination but even then her was not included in the select list. Her candidature was rejected due to failure on her part to enclose the experience certificate which was the condition of eligibility in terms of the advertisement and at the stage of scrutiny, her application was rejected without assigning any reason. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the first respondent. But the Division Bench taking note of the fact that the first respondent secured higher marks in the qualifying examination for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant, had observed that mere non-enclosure of the experience certificate with the application should not deny her claim of fair consideration for appointment and the Corporation was directed to consider the claim of the first respondent taking note of the experience certificate for consideration and appointment with a caveat that the order could not be treated as the precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had found that 31 nos. of applications of women candidates for the post of Senior Assistant and 106 nos. of applications for the post of Junior Assistant were rejected by the Corporation after finding them incomplete due to non-submission of the required documents like the experience certificate at the time of application. The Hon'ble Court has observed that the rejection of the application of the first respondent was indeed in terms of the Advertisement dated 11.11.2013, for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reason. It was in such given circumstances, the Hon'ble Court has not found any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision making process while rejecting the application of the first respondent for non-fulfillment of the necessary experience certificates, which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the Advertisement dated 11.11.2013 and no indefeasible right could have been claimed by the first respondent for her inclusion in the select list. It has been finally observed that merely because of the first respondent had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in overreaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment.
27. In exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Page No. 27/27 the Court does not sit in appeal. The writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued only when there is a failure of justice and there must be an error apparent on the face of the record as the Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity. It may be exercised if an authority takes irrelevant considerations into account or fails to take relevant considerations into account or if there is any wrongful admission or wrongful exclusion. A writ in the nature of certiorari can be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or an authority like the State or an instrumentality of the State, whose order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to follow or adhere to the norms, standards and procedures professed by it. In the case in hand, there is no presence of such elements in the actions taken by the respondent authorities in the FCI in the rejection of the candidatures of the two petitioners during the process of recruitment initiated pursuant to the Advertisement no. 4/2015.
28. In the light of the above discussion and for the reason assigns therein, this Court is of the considered view that the prayers made in the two writ petitions to set aside the select list of candidates for appointment to the post of Management Trainee [General], more particularly, the selection of the respondent no. 7 and for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners to the post of Management Trainee [General] in the North East Zone pursuant to the Advertisement no. 4/2015 cannot be acceded to as both the two writ petitions are found to be unmerited. Consequently, they are liable to be dismissed. The two writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands recalled. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant