Patna High Court - Orders
Dashrath Yadav & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2014
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.826 of 2014
======================================================
1. Sanjeet Kumar Ojha S/O Sri Surya Kumar Ojha Resident Of Village-
Barka Singhanpura, P.S- Simri, District- Buxar.
2. Shiv Prakash Singh S/O Late Chandeshwar Singh Resident Of Village-
Chandakewatiya, P.S- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur.
3. Subhash Kumar S/O Sri Vidyanand Thakur Resident Of Village-
Keshrawan, P.S- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.
4. Dharmendra Kumar S/O Sri Mahendra Singh Resident Of Village-
Dhawain, P.S- Dawat, District- Rohtas.
5. Shivji Ray S/O Tarkeshwar Ray Resident Of Village- Ramdathi, P.S-
Shahpur, District- Bhojpur.
6. Rajan Kumar S/O Sri Triloki Shahi Resident Of Village- Sahbazpur, P.S-
Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
7. Vivek Kumar Srivastava S/O Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava Resident Of
Village- Mahna Ganni, P.S- Muffasil, District- West Champaran.
8. Sudhir Kumar Dubey S/O Sri Tribhuwan Dubey Resident Of Village-
Rasulpur, P.S- Rasulpur, District- Saran.
9. Lal Babu Singh S/O Bhagelu Singh Resident Of Village- Dudhuki, P.S-
Krishna Brahampur, District- Buxar.
10. Sushil Kumar Singh S/O Sri Janardan Singh Resident Of Village-
Dubhuki, P.S- Krishna Brahmpur, District- Buxar.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
3. Director General Of Police, Cental Reserve Police, New Delhi.
4. Director General Of Police, Sheema Sukarsha Bal, New Delhi.
5. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi.
6. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Secutiry Force, New Delhi.
7. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
8. Staff Selection Commission Through Chairman, Chandigarh.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1199 of 2014
======================================================
Dashrath Yadav & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19277 of 2012
======================================================
1. Anil Prasad Gupta S/O Shri Ganesh Prasad Gupta R/O Village- Chausa
Railway Station, P.O. And Police Station- Chausa, District- Buxar, Pin -
802114 ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Secretary Personnel Public Grievance &
Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 2
Pension, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary Department Of Personnel & Training, New Delhi
3. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi
4. Commandant, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Bihar Region, Patna
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14985 of 2013
======================================================
1. Deepak Kumar Ojha Son Of Sri Shivmuni Ojha Resident Of
Village/Mohalla- Ojha Baraon, P.S.- Murar, District- Buxar
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary, New Delhi
2. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
3. Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
4. Director General Of Police, Sheema Suraksha Bal, New Delhi
5. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi
6. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi
7. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
8. Staff Selection Commission, Chandigarh
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18069 of 2013
======================================================
1. Dilip Kumar Son Of Sri Shambhu Sharma Resident Of Village / Mohalla
- Samochak, P.S. Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary, New Delhi
2. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
3. Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
4. Director General Of Police, Sheema Suraksha Bal, New Delhi
5. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi
6. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi
7. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
8. Staff Selection Commission, Chandigarh
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19039 of 2013
======================================================
1. Pankaj Choudhari S/O Sri Badri Vishal Choudhary Resident Of Village/
Mohalla- Belaur, P.S- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
3. Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 3
4. Director General Of Police, Sheema Suraksha Bal, New Delhi.
5. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi.
6. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi.
7. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
8. Staff Selection Commission, Chandigarh Through Secretary.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18878 of 2013
======================================================
1. Ram Pravin Ojha Son Of Sri Brij Mohan Ojha Resident Of Village /
Mohalla - Nimej, P.S. - Brahampur, District - Buxar
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Home Secretry, New Delhi
2. The Union Of India Through Home Secretry, New Delhi
3. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
4. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
5. Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
6. Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
7. Director General Of Police, Sheema Suraksha Bal, New Delhi
8. Director General Of Police, Sheema Suraksha Bal, New Delhi
9. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi
10. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi
11. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, New
Delhi
12. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, New
Delhi
13. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
14. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
15. Staff Selection Commission Through The Security, Chandigarh
16. Staff Selection Commission Through The Security, Chandigarh
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17528 of 2013
======================================================
1. Anish Kumar Son Of Sri Arun Sharma Resident Of Village/Mohalla-
Samochak, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary, New Delhi
2. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
3. Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
4. Director General Of Police, Sheema Suraksha Bal, New Delhi
5. Director General Of Police, Border Security Force, New Delhi
6. Director General Of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi
7. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi
Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 4
8. Staff Selection Commission, Chandigarh
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For petitioners (in all these cases) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Ritesh Kumar
For the Staff Selection Commission: Mr. Dwivedy Surendra,
Sr. Panel Counsel
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 21-08-2014The petitioners applied for the post of Constable (GD) in ITBP pursuant to an advertisement dated 5.2.2011 published in Employment News by the Staff Selection Commission, Chandigarh. The petitioners have been unsuccessful in the selection and as such preferred these writ petitions challenging their non-selection.
Counsel for the Staff Selection Commission once again raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction and thus maintainabilities of these writ applications by referring to Clause 15 of the Notice (Recruitment of Constables(GD) in ITBPF, 2011 which reads as follows:
"15. Courts Jurisdiction- Any dispute in regard to the recruitment with be subject to Courts/Tribunals having jurisdiction over the City/Town in which the concerned Regional/Sub Regional Office of the SCC is situated and where the candidate has submitted his application".
Counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue was already considered by this Court by order dated 8.4.2013 passed Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 5 in C.W.J.C. No.22888 of 2012 and its analogous cases and held that a writ Court would have jurisdiction, if part of cause has taken place within its territorial jurisdiction. I do have no reason to differ with the view that as substantial cause of action has taken place in the State of Bihar, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions notwithstanding the Head Office or the Regional/Sub Regional Office of the Selection Commission being situated out side the State of Bihar.
The petitioners have assailed their non-selection on a number of grounds. But before I examine the merits of their claim, it would be necessary to notice the relevant conditions contained in advertisement/Notice containing Important Instructions to Candidates and relevant Brochures.
It would manifest from bare perusal of advertisement dated 5.2.2011 published in the Employment News by the Staff Selection Commission that the recruitment process would consist of Physical Standards Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination and Medical Examination. Only the candidates qualifying in Physical Standards Tests and Physical Efficiency Tests will be called for written examination to be held on 1.5.2011. Based on Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 6 performance of written examination, candidates will be shortlisted for Medical Examination in a ratio as may be decided by the Commission. State wise vacancies were earmarked for candidates domiciled in the State and Reservation was made available for candidates domiciled in Naxal and Military affected areas as detailed in statement of vacancy. The brochure and the notice title "Important instructions to candidates" comprised of other necessary instructions to the candidates making application for recruitment. Paragraph 2 of the "Important instructions to candidates of Notice of the Examination" stipulates that in view of large number of applications, it would not be possible to make scrutiny of eligibility or other aspect before the written examination and therefore the candidature and forms will be accepted only provisionally. On scrutiny, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature would be cancelled.
As per the scheme of examination, vacancies were allotted to State as well as Union Territory and some vacancies were earmarked for Naxal and Military affected areas of border district within the concerned district. List of such area and district is mentioned in the appendix of the notice of Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 7 examination. As the vacancies were allotted to the concerned State/Union Territory, the candidates were required to submit domicile certificate of the State with which they were concerned. Sub Para (iii) of Paragraph 10 under the heading "Mode of selection" clarifies that allotment of CPO to the candidates selected from each State will be on merit-cum- option depending on availability of vacancies in each CPO earmarked for the State. The final result of the Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB Examination, 2011 who were found fit in Medical Examination would be declared by the Commission. The write up of the result contains all the details i.e. manner and methodology of preparation of result, vacancy position, category wise details of the qualified candidates CAPF wise, marks of last selected candidates for each category CAPFs wise, State- wise, cut off marks for each category in Reserve List etc. As per the result, two lists were prepared; Select List and Reserve List. The mark list of the candidates was also published by the Commission on the web site. The candidates were considered for allotment of only those CPO as opted by them in the relevant column of application form.
According to the respondents, candidates with blank option for CPO or invalid option were not considered for Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 8 inclusion in select list on the basis of vacancy allotted to a particular State. During the process of result, it was found that some vacancies are left unfilled in some State due to non- availability of suitable candidates. It was also found that there was some State where candidates securing marks above the cut off marks, but failed to find place in select list to their respective State on account of limited seats were put in Reserve List. Some of the candidates who had not opted preference, for allotment of CPO or submitted invalid preference were also considered for allocation in the reserve list.
Once having noticed the general conditions and instructions attached with the recruitment process, I would now proceed to examine the case of the petitioners. The first dispute raised is with respect to number of vacancies for which the advertisement was issued and selection was to be made. According to petitioners the total number of vacancies available was 24000, whereas according to respondents it was 16,467. I find clearly mentioned in the advertisement, that firm number of vacancies in each category of the post will be determined in due course. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that as per letter dated 29.3.2011 of Ministry of Home Affairs, the total vacancies were raised to 16,467.The Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 9 petitioners have not produced any document in support of their claim that the number of posts were enhanced to 24,600, and as such their plea to the said extent being based on no material, is unacceptable.
It is true that generally the Selection Committee/Appointing authority should try to fill up all vacancies notified provided it gets a required number of eligible candidates vis-a-viz vacancy allotted for different category State/Union Territory wise. However, if the authorities decided not to fill up all the posts, they must have valid reasons for not filling up the posts. Nonetheless an unselected candidate can seek mandamus if a person with lesser marks/qualification has been appointed in his category, if he satisfies other conditions.
The petitioners have put a claim that the persons with lesser marks in their respective categories have been selected in preference to those who have secured more marks. In support of their submissions, the petitioners have cited example of one Lal Babu Singh (petitioner no.9 of C.W.J.C. No.826 of 2014). According to the petitioners, Lal Babu Singh secured 56 marks, yet he was not selected though candidates securing 55 marks in OBC category have been selected.
I find that the vacancies were earmarked Patna High Court CWJC No.826 of 2014 (8) dt.21-08-2014 10 State/Union Territory wise vis-a-viz the concerned C.P.Os for which the preference was to be indicated. In my view, in case, if anyone having lesser marks have been selected in preference to any of the petitioners, subject to their fulfilling the requisite conditions prescribed in the selection, their case should be appropriately considered. But in order to claim such relief, the petitioners concerned must make an application with relevant details before the appropriate authority.
The petitioners lastly contended that though they succeeded in all the tests including medical tests and had also filled up the forms correctly, still they have not been selected, though the vacancies in their respective categories exist.
If the assertion of the petitioners is correct and if they file a representation with specific details, not being vague and of general nature, the same would be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of its receipt.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stands disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/-
U