Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri S. Ramalingam, Commandant Staff Officer to DIGP, CRPF, Bangalore was impleaded as respondent No.3 as directed by the Court in its order dated 29-9-1999. Further, the Court by its interim direction dated 11-11-1999 directed the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi, first respondent herein to file his affidavit after necessary investigation into the alleged irregularities in the selection process culminating in the selection of the writ petitioners as Constables (General Duty). Accordingly, Sri Mahendranath Sabharwal, IPS Director General, CRPF, New Delhi has filed affidavit on behalf of the first respondent. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents appended to the pleadings, the following facts surface, over which there is no and cannot be any controversy. They are : the Recruitment Board headed by Sri S. Ramalingam, Commandant Staff Officer to DIGP, Bangalore as per ADIGP, GS, CRPF, Hyderabad Officer Order No. R-II-14/99-GCH-Estt-3 (1st H/Y) dated 2-7-1999 conducted the recruitment for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad and submitted the Board proceedings to Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad vide his Letter No.O-II-1/99-SR dated 17-7-1999. The Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad forwarded the Board Proceedings to DIGP, CRPF, Hyderabad vide his Utter No.R-II-14/99-Estt-3-GCH dated 19-7-1999. The DIGP CRPF, Hyderabad scrutinised the Board Proceedings and found that the proceedings had not been in accordance with the instructions, and he forwarded his observations vide Letter No.R-II-3/99-Estt-V (Ist H/Y) dated 23-7-1999. Two major flaws were pointed out and, they were: (i) a number of candidates who had actually failed had been declared passed/fit, and that (ii) the merit list has not been prepared in accordance with reservation rules as number of SC/OBC candidates who got higher marks than the general candidates and had not been availed any relaxation has not been adjusted against the general quota as should have been done. At this stage, the Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad recast the entire merit list by altering marks and produced a new merit list in such a way that preserved the selection of candidates shown to have been selected in the merit List I. The IGP, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad noticed that there were two sets of merit lists consisting of same individuals, and he also found the above noted two major flaws in the selection process and that prompted him to pass the impugned order on 14-8-1999 cancelling the selections.

4. Let me consider the second contention of the leaned Counsel for the petitioners first. The letters issued to the petitioners on 19-7-1999 state that they are provisionally selected for the post of Constable (General Duty) in CRPF and directed the petitioners to report to the Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad on 9-8-1999 along with certain documents specified in the letters for verification. Those letters also state that the selection of the petitioners for the post of Constable (General Duty) is purely on temporary basis and selection can be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons thereto, The said letters also incorporate certain other conditions, and reference to them is not necessary for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. The letters issued to the petitioners on 19-7-1999, therefore, cannot be considered to be appointment orders. They were only offers of appointment in the form of letters after provisional selection of the petitioners. Should it be noted that the principles of natural justice are handmaids to promote justice and they are not meant to thwart justice. Here is a case where the whole selection process is vitiated on account of at least two major substantial flaws which go to the root of the matter. The first flaw is that the combined merit list has not been drawn in accordance with the instructions laid down by the Directorate of CRPF vide its Letter No.R.II-15/96-Estt-II dated 12-12-1996. As per the above instructions, SC/ST/OBC candidates selected on their own merit without availing any relaxation will not be adjusted against reserved vacancies and should be adjusted against general vacancies, whereas, in the instant case SC/OBC candidates who got higher marks than the general candidates and have not availed any relaxations, have not been adjusted against General quota. It is unfortunate that in the instant case, the Recruitment Board headed by Sri S. Ramalingain, Commandant Staff Officer to DIGP, Bangalore did not conduct tests commonly to all the applicants for the posts. It grouped the applicants under the open category and other reserved categories and conducted tests separately and exclusively for open category candidates and each reserved category of candidates. This particular procedure adopted by the Recruitment Board is ex-facie not only in violation of the instructions laid down by the Directorate of CRPF vide its letter dated 12-12-1996 but also in utter violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The right guaranteed to the members belonging to SC/ST/OBC under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to compete for the posts available to the open category candidates is totally denied to them by the startling procedure adopted by the Recruitment Board. Further, it is seen that a number of candidates who had actually failed had been declared passed/fit. As per Para (iv) of Appendix 'G' of Recruitment Manual, a candidate, who secures 10 marks out of 20 marks in interview, is to be declared fit/passed, whereas a large number of candidates, who secured less than 10 marks, have been declared passed/fit. This daw is also a substantial flaw vitiating selection process. Sri Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, quite fairly did not have any argument questioning the finding of the respondents that the selection process was vitiated on account of the above noted two flaws. In other words, the above finding of the respondents remains unchallenged and is justified and correct. Of course, the respondents have placed necessary materials before the Court to satisfy that the selection process adopted by the Recruitment Board was vitiated on account of the above two flaws. If that is the factual position, the question is whether this Court should interfere with the impugned proceedings of the IGP, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad dated 14-8-1999 cancelling the selection solely on the ground that such action was taken without issuing individual notices to the petitioners? As pointed supra, the principles of natural justice are essentially meant to advance and promote justice and undo injustice and they are undoubtedly not meant to thwart justice or to perpetuate injustice. The selection procedure adopted by the Recruitment Board headed by Sri S. Ramalingam, Commandant Staff Officer to DIGP, CRPF, Bangalore was ex-fade unconstitutional and totally against the interests of the candidates in whose favour protective discrimination is guaranteed by the Constitution. Added to this, it is not a case where any of the vested rights of the writ petitioners was violated by the impugned action. The provisional selection of the petitioners to the post of Constable (General Duty) as reflected in the letters dated 19-7-1999 does not vest any enforceable right in the petitioners that they should be appointed to the post of Constable (General Duty) as a matter of course, and their entitlement to the post of Constable (General Duty) was subjected to their fulfilling or satisfying the terms and conditions set out in those letters and the petitioners agreeing for the terms and conditions proposed by the CRPF. Looking from that angle also issuance of notice to the petitioners before the impugned action was taken was not a must. The petitioners do not dispute the correctness of the finding of the respondents that selection process was vitiated by the above noted two major flaws. The petitioners have had sufficient and fair opportunity before this Court to meet the case of the respondents, and in fact they do not contest the correctness of the above finding of the respondents. The petitioners were provided with, post-decisional fair hearing before this Court.