Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The facts in a nutshell are thus :-

The petitioners had applied for unskilled labour, Group 'C', Non-gazetted post in response to the advertisement issued by the Naval Dockyard on 7th-13th April, 2012. In accordance with the said advertisement 325 posts of unskilled labourers were notified. The advertisement provided that the vacancy position may be altered as per the discretion of the competent authority. On 6/12/2012, the respondents conducted the physical test and interview. Though the entire selection process was completed no appointments were made till 1/5/2013. On 1/5/2013 a complaint was made in respect of the selection alleging malpractices. In a detailed inquiry that was WP 13803-16 .doc conducted by the head of the Naval Dockyard, report was submitted on 24/5/2013. The report did not reveal any malpractice.

9. The Tribunal was of the view that the selection process completed after the physical test and interview in response to the advertisement dated 7th - 13th April, 2012 is legally valid and liable to stand the scrutiny of law. Any further deviation of the selection process through introduction of a written test will be illegal and cannot be upheld. The Tribunal WP 13803-16 .doc thus held that the attempt by the respondents to subsequently introduce the written test into the selection process is illegal and invalid.

18. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that this Court by an interim order having kept 72 posts vacant, amounts to denying the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal to those who did not approach the Tribunal, can only be stated to be rejected. It is not the case of the petitioners or respondent - Union of India that pursuant to the order of this Court, by keeping 72 posts vacant, the selection process was completed. As a matter of fact respondent did not proceed with the selection. On the contrary the Union of India by challenging the order of the Tribunal took a stand that the selection process itself should be scrapped. We therefore do not find any merit in the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the interveners and other similarly situate cannot claim the benefit of the Tribunals order.

WP 13803-16 .doc

19. In any case, the petitioners specific challenge before the Tribunal was as regards the introduction of the written test midstream of the selection process being illegal. Once the Tribunal recorded the finding that the introduction of the written test in the middle of the selection process is arbitrary and illegal, it is for the respondents then to complete the selection process which was initiated and publish the select list based on physical test and interview. It is a settled principle of law that the petitioners have a right to be considered in the selection process and there exists no indefeasible right to be appointed only because they have participated in the selection process. The challenge before the Tribunal was to the legality of the selection process upon introduction of the written test mid- stream.