Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that from the documents supplied to him under Right to Information Act, it is clearly established that the petitioner had duly submitted his application form for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector (Unreserved category) within time and his application form was very much available with the respondents, yet his application was not considered at the time of preparation of list of eligible or ineligible candidates. By suppressing his application form, the petitioner was deprived to participate in the selection process only to keep him away from the selection process and to select the respondent No.4 who was an influential person. There was no reason for the respondents in not considering the application form of the petitioner in selection process. He would also submit that in the return, the respondent Municipal Council pleaded that the application form of the petitioner was misplaced at the time of preparation of the list of eligible and ineligible candidates, but supplying copy of same to the petitioner at later stage under the Right to Information Act itself shows that the said application of petitioner was very much available with them. He also submits that experience certificate of respondent No.4 for working with the Municipal Council, Kumhari, itself is a suspicious document as the same has been issued by his father who was posted as CMO at Municipal Council Kumhari. The respondent No.4 has not worked there at Kumhari, but under the arbitrary exercise of powers his father has issued the experience certificate. Further, at the time of publication of advertisement for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector at Municipal Council Bhatapara, the father of respondent No.4 was posted as CMO Bhatapara and there was every chance of being influenced to the members of the selection committee by him. The petitioner was deprived of fair selection process and prima facie the selection of respondent No.4 appears to be tainted. Therefore, the impugned order of appointment of respondent No.4 may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to conduct a fair selection process for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector (Unreserved Category).

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would also opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the respondent No.4 had submitted his application form supported by requisite documents. He was having requisite qualification including experience of work done at Municipal Council, Kumhari. After having successful in the interview, he was selected on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector after recommendation of the selection committee and PIC meeting dated 25.07.2013. The allegation of tainted selection process is misconceived as all the procedure have transparently followed by the authorities. There was no influence from the father of respondent No.4 and under his official capacity, based on the record, he issued the experience certificate in favour of respondent No.4. After due and fair selection process, the name of respondent No.4 was recommended and he has been appointed, in which there is no arbitrariness or illegality. He worked there for more than 10 years and at this stage his appointment cannot be cancelled for no fault of him and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

13. The issuance of experience certificate in favour of respondent No.4 by his father is not denied by respondent No.4. He pleaded in his return that he worked there in the Revenue Department through placement from September 2006 to July, 2009. However, there is no answer to the effect that the said experience certificate was issued to respondent No.4 by his father who was then posted as CMO at Municipal Council Kumhari.

14. From consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as documents produced by the parties and their pleadings, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner was arbitrarily deprived from participating selection process by suppressing his application form only to give appointment on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector (Unreserved Category) to respondent No.4 whose father was CMO posted at Municipal Council, Bhatapara at the time of publication of advertisement and the experience certificate was issued by his father when he was posted as CMO at Municipal Council Kumhari for the period September 2006 to July, 2009 and all these exercise of selection process appears to be arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorities concerned and against the fair and transparent selection process.

20. As a consequence of quashment of appointment of respondent No.4, the respondent No.3-CMO, Municipal Council, Bhatapara, is directed to conduct a fresh selection process considering candidature of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order of appointment after conducting fair and transparent selection process.

21. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.