Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Indian Air Force made an advertisement in the Employment News of 22-28 September, 2010 declaring vacancies in different depots of which one was 24 Equipment Depot, Air Force Station, Manauri, Allahabad. The advertisement clearly depicted 04 posts of Lower Division Clerk, 01 each of Assistant Store Keeper, Electrician, Carpenter and 02 each of Motor Driver (MTD), Fireman and Cook. The applicants being eligible for the aforesaid posts applied for the posts of Lower Division Clerk, Fireman and Cook. Call letters were issued to them. They appeared in the written examination/ physical/practical and interview and they were found eligible and appropriate for the respective posts and an information was given to them dated 03.03.2011 regarding their provisional selection/short listing for appointment. Their original credentials and character certificate were got verified by the department. The list was published on 17.03.2011 and the selected candidates were required to undergo the medical examination and accordingly they were all medically examined and found fit. The appointment letters were issued to the applicants on 28.04.2011 with the probation period of two years. As per appointment letter, the applicants reported for duty at 07.00 a.m. on 10.05.2011 and joined 24 Equipment Depot Air Force Station, Manauri, Allahabad. Three out of four applicants were allotted Government accommodations and since then they are working on the respective posts.

8. The respondents have also filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit mainly stating that on inquiry it was found that the BoO had not adhered to the guidelines and recruitment rules at the time of selection. A lot of irregularities and illegalities, as mentioned in annexure R-6 of the C.A., were found for which the complete selection process had been quashed. The candidates were short listed and selected only provisionally and they were appointed temporarily as mentioned in their appointment letters. The Board has not done the assigned tasks in a transparent manner. The complaints made against the aforesaid selection by the complainants including Secretary Staff Side JCM III level, Air Headquarters are of very serious nature for which the entire selection/ appointment has been quashed. The complaints and irregularities/illegalities were not against the applicants in the instant O.A. hence, they were not made party to the complaints nor any witness in CoI. The CoI inquired on the procedure followed by the BoO during selection process hence, there was no need to inform the same to applicants. If there existed laid down procedure for selection and the same has been compromised then the entire selection become illegal. The BoO for selection had no mandate to circumvent the procedure and vitiate the entire selection procedure. It was mandated to follow the procedure as well as guidelines and was obliged to follow the guidelines in letter and spirit. It is worth to mention that the BoO had circumvented the procedure and the guidelines for selection and were not abided by them. It was not open to the Board of Officers to bypass the laid down procedure for selection. The contention of applicants that due to paucity of time, the BoO have shortened the procedure is not correct. The guidelines were very much in the knowledge of BoO but, deliberately they have not properly adhered to the same during process of selection. The terms of reference of the BoO including the copies of guidelines, recruitment rules and the list of candidates called for interview/test were handed over to the BoO so constituted for the purpose of just and fair selection. The preparation of two sets of question papers instead of three sets is a clear violation of the guidelines of selection process. The erring members of the BoO have been suitably punished for lapses on their part which they have made in selection process. Requisite endurance test for various tradesman, which is a mandatory requirement, was ignored thereby making entire selection illegal. Similarly, it is evident that night driving test was not conducted for MTD tradesman. It is admitted that the driving test was conducted after 14.30 hours and lasted for approximately 04 hours. This approximation does not give an exact timing. There is a clear division between sunset and pitch-dark night. The twilight period cannot be construed as night period and Mechanical Transport Driver (for short MTD) is supposed to be proficient for both day and night driving. If the MTD tradesmen are not subjected to driving skill test for night driving then the driving test is incomplete and is a clear cut vindication of the findings of CoI which has ultimately recommended for the cancellation of proceedings in toto/ totality. Similarly, the BoO has committed a blatant wrong by not seeking permission from Command Headquarters in the case of not calling all the eligible candidates for interview. Should all candidates have been called for interview then the outcome in the form of result would have been different. Not calling all the candidates was nothing but a clear deprivation of opportunity to other deserving candidates which is a clear cut violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, as per the procedure candidates are to be skill tested first and those candidates who are successful in the skill test are to be called for the interview. But, in the present case this procedure has not been followed. Even though the post was reserved for Hearing Handicapped (OBC) candidates but a minimum performance criteria has to be laid out so that a reasonable candidate is selected in the Air Force for the prescribed post. Not stipulating a bare minimum criteria in the form of minimum marks was bad in law as far as selection is concerned. In other words, it is nothing but choosing and picking bad amongst the worst. Similarly, irregularities have been committed in not informing the Special Employment Exchange and Vocational Centers for sponsoring the candidates in the category of Carpenter trade reserved for HH (OBC) candidate. Irregularities have also been committed in the selection process by not following the necessary guidelines such as the measurement of chest, unexpanded and expanded to ascertain the physical fitness of the candidates for Fireman trade, endurance test of carrying weight of 63.5 kg for 183 meters within 96 seconds, clearing 2.7 meters wide ditch and landing on both feet (long jump) and climbing 3 meters vertical rope using hands and feet for selection of Fireman post. Similarly, it is revealed during investigation that the marks have been interpolated after deciding the relative merit of the candidates which is a wrong procedure hence the total selection was illegal. If these incidents, quoted above, are put together the total selection process will be marred by illegalities and irregularities. Adequate time was given for completion of selection process to the BoO. They could have followed the laid down procedure. Violation of guidelines and procedures has lead to quashing of entire selection process and the appointments made pursuant to this selection process. The applicants were not party to the alleged irregularity and illegality hence no opportunity was provided to them. On the other hand all those persons who have directly or indirectly concerned were afforded ample opportunity to put forth their view points. The termination order is neither arbitrary nor illegal.

5. While bilingual papers were prepared for Cook and Fireman trades, guidelines issued were to assess an individual in English language.

6. As per guidelines given in advertisement in the Employment News, the measurement of chest, unexpended and expended, to ascertain the physical fitness of the candidates for Fireman trade was not carried out. Further, the requisite endurance test of carrying weight of 63.5 Kg for 183 m within 96 seconds, clearing 2.7 m wide ditch landing on both feet (long jump) and climbing 3 m vertical rope using hands and feet too was not carried out. As a test of endurance, the candidates were only made to run a distance of 1.6 km.

15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and their submissions made above, it is apparent from the record that for the selection of Fireman as per the guidelines given in the advertisement in the Employment News, measurement of chest unexpended and expended to ascertain the physical fitness of candidates was not carried out. The requisite endurance test of carrying weight of 63.5 kg for 183 meters within 96 seconds, clearing 2.7 meters wide ditch and landing on both feet (long jump) and climbing 3 meters vertical rope using hands and feet too was not carried out rather as endurance test the candidates were only meant to run a distance of 1.6 km. only. Thus, it is apparent that the actual fitness test which was required to test the endurance of Fireman was not carried out by the BoO. It goes to the very root of the test conducted by the BoO. Similarly, as regards the test of Mechanical Transport Driver Tradesman, it appears that the driving test was conducted for only half a km. however, as per the prescribed guidelines, it was not sufficient to ascertain the driving skills of the candidates. According to the guidelines given in the Employment News, night driving test of the candidates was not carried out, which was necessary. For typing test to L.D.C. post, though test was conducted but, the examiners were not given any guidelines to assess/evaluate the typing proficiency consequently marking was not carried out uniformly. Similarly for the post of L.D.C., it appears from the record that 11600 candidates appeared for the post of L.D.C. examination and after the written examination, top 10 candidates were called for the interview out of which only 04 appeared, and of this top 03 candidates had secured 124, 110 and 109 marks respectively but without giving any reason for rejecting the candidature of these candidates, the BoO reduced the cut off marks to 40% and 38 additional candidates were called for interview. The notable feature is that these candidates were called by telegram on 08.02.2011 with interview date as 11.02.2011. During the inquiry, it was also found that the candidates in the first round of interview were not found suitable, therefore, additional candidates were called. For the second round of interview, sufficient time was not given for out station candidates to report. As required by the guidelines, Headquarters, Maintenance Command was not informed of this deviation in procedure i.e. reducing the cut off marks and calling additional set of candidates for interview to the post of L.D.C. It was also found by the CoI during investigation that Shri Yogender- a candidate for the post of Electrician was unusually high and for the post of Civil MTD, there was a totaling error (lesser marks shown than what he actually got). As a result, the candidate  Gaurav Mishra who would otherwise the main candidate became standby for the post of Civil MTD. Similarly for the post of ASK, the candidates who had cleared the written examination were short listed by carrying out interview first. Subsequently, the skill test of the short listed candidates was carried out whereas as per procedure the candidates were to be skill tested first and the candidates who are successful in the skill test only were to be called for the interview. Why this deviation has been made reason is best known to the BoO. It was also found by the CoI that no re-check was carried off the application forms which were rejected during the initial scrutiny. This was not proper as the forms should have been re-checked and it was possible that some other candidates would have got chance to appear in the test. Similarly, minimum marks were not stipulated for each trade, either by Headquarters Maintenance Command or by the Unit. In the test of Carpenter (HH OBC) the candidates who scored only 11% in the written test was called for interview/skill test and he was selected. Similarly, it was also found that marks in viva and skill test were inflated in case of main candidates, for the purpose of ensuring their selection. For example, a candidate for the post of ASK who secured only 24% marks in written examination and 38% in skill test was given 98.7% in viva. For the post of Cook, it appears that the favouritism was shown in case of two local candidates who had secured only 42% and 51% in written test but they were given 84% and 80% marks respectively in the skill test. Moreover, both these candidates, who were employed as Mess Orderlies, were given experience certificates as Cook in the Messes. It also transpired during the inquiry that in many cases no notice has been taken for the qualification or experience of candidates even when marks were to be given for this. As per guidelines, additional marks/weightage is to be given for the same. In the case of one of the candidates appointed to the post of Fireman, the experience certificate shows that he had undergone training only for seven days, whereas some of the rejected candidates were having much better qualifications/experience. During the selection of ASK, no marks were given while conducting the practical test. The marks have been interpolated after deciding the relative merit of the candidates. During investigation, it was also found that one Ms. Nighat Bano had appeared for the written examination for LDC in the third batch. The third batch was given the second set of question paper. During the valuation of the answer sheets it was noticed that Ms Nighat Bano had secured 85% marks. However, on scrutiny of her answer sheet, it was observed that the answers were for the first set of question paper, which was given to 1st and 2nd batch of candidates for the LDC examination. This incident of Nighat Bano points out at the possibility of similar foul play in the selection procedure with some other candidates also. Similarly during the practical examination for Civ MTDs, the candidates driving experience certificates were not checked carefully and candidates giving incorrect information were not screened out. For example, Shri Avinash Sharma, who has been selected as main candidate for Civ MTD (OBC) submitted an experience certificate of two years, whereas his driving license has been issued 1= years back.