Rajnikant Ojha vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 2014
42. After six years of commencement of selection
process, I , however, desist myself from issuing any direction
to the respondents compelling them to appoint these petitioners
against those posts on the basis of selection process which
came to be cancelled, though I have held that cancellation of
selection process was an arbitrary exercise of power. This I
am doing keeping in mind the nature of service where age of
the incumbent at the entry level for the purpose of their
35
training etc, matters a lot. Further, the direction of this Court
in case of Manoj Kumar Choudhary (supra) is also staring at
me. However, since I have held that fundamental rights of
these petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 have been breached,
because of non compliance of terms of the cancellation notice,
I am of the considered opinion that they will be required to be
compensated by the respondents. I would, therefore, direct the
respondents particularly respondent no.12 the Chief Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway,
(Respondent no.4) to pay to these petitioners a sum of Rs. 5
lakh each in order to compensate the infringement of their
fundamental rights by respondents within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order. If the said amount is not paid within the period
specified, it would incur interest at the rate of 12% per annum
after the said period of three months. If the amount is not paid
even within one year, it will carry interest 18% per annum
from the expiry of the said period of one year till the date of
actual payment.