Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. There is another fact, which is a development during the pendency of the present writ application, which important and cannot be loss sight of.

21. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, stating that the respondents have come out with Employment Notice No. 1 of 2013 published in employment News dated 21-27 December, 2013 as well as in the daily Newspaper "Hindustan" dated 11.1.2014. Said employment notice is also available on the Website of the Indian Railway which has been brought on record as Annexure-14 to the supplementary affidavit. Through the said Employment notice, applications have been invited for filling up the posts of Ancillary staff in different trades in Railway Protection Force including Railway Protection Special Force and such posts include the posts of constable ( water carrier). Referring to the Employment Notice no. 1 of 2013, it is contention of the petitioners that even this notice issued after five years does not have any reference to the notice cancelling selection process issued in 2009 which had required that all candidates found fit in physical measurement during the recruitment held at Patna Centre would be allowed to appear in the first recruitment and that they did not need to apply afresh.

33. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Food Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Bhanu Lodh and others (supra) has contended that merely on the ground that the vacancies are notified, State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies unless there is some provision to the contrary in applicable rules. He has submitted referring to the said judgment that whether to fill up or not to fill up the post is a policy decision and unless it is infected with the vice of arbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review. There cannot be any dispute over the proposition of law as advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. However, as I have held, no cogent materials have been brought on record by the respondents to satisfy this court that there was due application of mind by the competent authority i.e. Chief Security Commissioner/RPF/ Northern Railway before taking a decision to cancel the entire selection process particularly in view of note file dated 16.4.2009 wherein the Committee observed that irregularities pointed out during various stages of scrutiny seemed to have been clarified satisfactorily. The decision to cancel the entire process of selection, for the reasons as noted above, was therefore an arbitrary exercise of power, applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23 in case of East Coast Railway vs. Mahadeo Appa Rao ( supra).

34. The facts of the present case demonstrate arbitrary action of much higher degree on the part of the respondents subsequent to cancellation of the selection in question which is evident, admitted and writ large. Even if, it is presumed that the competent authority which has been described to be the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Northern Railway took a decision bonafide to cancel the selection process as a whole and in his opinion there were large scale irregularities in the process of selection, he was bound by the terms notice published in Employment News dated 26.9.2009 to 2.10.2009 which contained the information as regards cancellation of selection process and the fact that fresh notification for recruitment of Ancillary staff would be issued shortly and all the candidates found fit in physical measurement during recruitment held at Patna Centre would be allowed to appear in the fresh recruitment and that they would not be required to apply afresh. It certainly meant that eligible candidates who had applied against post advertised vide employment notice no. 1 of 2008 and with respect to which selection came to be cancelled were to be considered afresh against the said vacancies and they were not required to apply afresh. There is absolutely no explanation by the respondents as to why they did not proceed immediately thereafter and held a selection process afresh with respect to the vacancies advertised confining it to the candidates who had applied. Respondent as well as the competent authority chose to maintain complete silence over the issuance of notification in terms of cancellation notice published in Employment News dated 26.9.2009 to 2.10.2009. This, in my opinion, took away in most illegal and arbitrary manner, the rights of these petitioners to be considered against the post for which they had applied. The petitioners who participated and were placed high in the merit list, which could not be published, because of an arbitrary decision were kept away from even being considered for the said advertised post. This in my opinion, amounts to gross abuse of power and dereliction of duty in carrying out its own promise by the State through cancellation notice that fresh notification for recruitment would be issued shortly which was not done. I am of the considered view on the basis of discussion as above, that fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been breached by the respondents. Such infringement of fundamental rights will certainly need to be cured or compensated in exercise of plenary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

35. Learned counsel for the respondents has attempted to persuade this Court that the vacancies against which the petitioners had applied in 2008 have been added to subsequent vacancies and all such posts have been advertised recently and therefore no direction can be issued for publication of their result and their appointment against those post. He has also attempted to persuade this Court that there has been delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court and, for that reason also they are not entitled to any relief. As has been recorded above, the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 15450 of 2010. It has been pleaded in the writ application that the petitioners had been approaching the authorities seeking information as regards stage of declaration of the result. They learnt about the decision of the respondents to cancel the selection process through an information received by them under the Right to Information Act. The writ application was, however, permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 16.9.2010 under the impression that they had remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. They approached the Tribunal immediately thereafter. However, Central Administrative Tribunal rejected their case vide order dated 17.4.2013 on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, the post in question being combatised. Thereafter the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ application.