Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Perusal of the grounds/reasons for disqualification of the applicants, as brought out in the respondents' counter affidavit, provides an interesting reading. Shri Swarn Singh (1) is shown as having been wrongly treated as belonging to ST category while he infact came from OBC category, Dharmender Singh (5) is shown as having been wrongly treated as belonging to ST category while he came from Genl. category and Raj Kumar (9) was wrongly shown as belonging to ST category while he belonged to SC category. Kulwant Dabas (2) and Pramod Kumar Rai (7) are shown to have been disqualified as being younger in age. Sunil Kumar (3) Ashok Kumar (4) Pawan Kumar Sharma (6) and Ashwini Sharma (8) are shown as not having made the grade on merits. As against this it is pointed out by the applicants in their rejoinder that Shri Swarn Singh though he belonged to OBC category had presented himself only as a Genl. candidate as he was the ward of a Policeman, but has been treated by the respondents as an ST candidate in the beginning and subsequently penalized. Dharmendcr Singh and Raj Kumar had also shown themselves as belonging categories OBC and S.C.--they came from though the respondents have on their own categorised them as S.T. candidates and thereafter denied them the benefit of selection. Similar is the position in respect of the other five candidates as well. Evidently, therefore, the applicants have been penalised for no fault of theirs, but purely on the basis of mistakes committed by the respondents. And this has been done without even putting them on any notice. It is not at all the case of the respondents that any of these applicants have committed any mistake to obtain for themselves the selection by any wrong means. The mistakes, the attempted rectification, change in the criterion etc. are all creations of the respondents after the selection was over and the result has been declared. In fact, if any mistake had arisen and called for rectification, the proper course of action for the respondents was to have cancelled the entire selection process and ordered fresh selection instead of changing the criterion after the process has been completed and the results announced, just to bring about the rejection of 52 out of 1573 candidates as well as to facilitate selection of another batch of 52 candidates in their place. It was all the more necessary as, according to the respondents own confidential note dated 9.8.2001 as many as 695 errors/omissions have been noticed in the selection of 1573 candidates out of 3784 who appeared for the interview. Applicants, in the circumstances cannot be faulted when they allege illegality or improprity in this process. Our findings are fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of S. Govindaraju's (supra), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as below :

19. The respondents could not have changed the criterion for selection, to the detriment of the applicants, who were successful candidates, two months after the selection process has been completed and results announced merely on their understanding feeling that certain errors and omissions had crept in the selection process unless and until it is proved that the applicants were in any way responsible for any of the mistakes or misrepresentation which alone have vitiated the selection process. As pointed out earlier it is not the case of the respondents that any of the applicants in this case had misrepresented facts to gain any undue advantage in the selection. That being the case the action of the respondents in denying them the call for medical examination was patently illegal and unjust. The Tribunal, therefore, has perforce to interfere in this matter and render justice.

22.We are also aware of the principle highlighted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that empanelment of a candidate per se does not give him a right for appointment, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chandfiehari Kapoorand Ors. (supra). The same is the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. UOI and Ors., 1991(3) SCC 47=1992(1) SLJ 7 (SC). However, the circumstances of the applicants in this OA are not the same as the parties concerned in the above two decisions. Here what is under challenge is not the non issue of appointment to those placed in the select panel but the same is directed against the action of the respondents in alterting the criteron for selection after the selection process was complete, to shut out the applicants who have been selected earlier to bring in others. Therefore, the rationale in the above two decisions cannot hurt the cause of the applicants in this OA.