Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 453 (PAT)

Jyotsna Mishra v. Union of India

1999-05-20

ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

body1999
JUDGMENT A.K. GANGULY, J. 1. This matter has been heard at length at the admission stage. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for publishing the result of the written test and the interview conducted by the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangthan (hereinafter referred to as the said organisation) on 7th November, 1997. According to the petitioner such interview and the written test were held for appointment to the post of Youth Co-ordinator in the said organisation. 3. Petitioner's case is that the said organisation is an autonomous body under the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Ministry of Human Resources Development Government of India. An advertisement was issued in the 'Times of India' a daily news paper published from New Delhi dated 25th of December, 1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling-up the post of Youth Coordinators in the said organisation. The petitioner's case is that she has the requisite qualification for the post and she applied for the same. Thereafter, she received the interview letter, by which the petitioner was asked to appear in the written test and the interview on 7th November, 1997, and the petitioner appeared in the written test and the interview on the due date. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner made several enquiries from respondent no. 2 about the result of the written test and the interview held on 7th November, 1997, but she could not get any satisfactory reply. The petitioner's further case is that on 27th August, 1998 she sent a letter to the Director, Nehru Yuva Sangthan Kendra, New Delhi requesting her to furnish the merit list prepared by the Sangthan on the basis of the interview held on 7th November, 1997 for the post of Youth Co-ordinator, but till today the petitioner has not received any reply from respondent no. 2. Therefore, she has filed this writ petition, inter alia, contending that she has a fundamental right to know the result of the written test and the interview and she wants a direction upon the respondent to appoint her on the post of youth co-ordinator in case her name appears in the merit list. 5. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in this case, it has been stated that the Financial Advisor of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India informed respondent no. 5. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in this case, it has been stated that the Financial Advisor of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India informed respondent no. 2 that as per instructions from the Ministry of Finance, New Kendra/District offices of the said organisation can be started only after prior approval of the Department of Expenditure. Previously when new Kendras/District offices were opened, the approval of Department of Expenditure was not taken which led to serious audit objections. As in the instant case there is no requisite sanction so result of the written test and the interview was not published and the process of recruitment, though initiated, has been cancelled. Since process of recruitment was cancelled, there is no question of declaration of result for appointment of the petitioner. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that respondent no. 2 is functioning under the control of Respondent no. 1, the Government of India. As such, without grant of valid sanction the respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction to appoint a person on the post of Youth Co- ordinator. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in this connection upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh vs. Union of India & another. The facts of that case are more or less similar. In the said case a Learned Judge of the Delhi High Court issued a direction upon the respondent to declare result of the examination held on 7.11.1997 and further directed that if the petitioners are found successful they shall be appointed. The learned Judge passing the said order has observed that the attitude of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is contrary to the "ethos of Constitution of India" and is perverse and violative of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants me to follow the judgment of the Delhi High Court. 7. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is not binding upon me. Apart from that, this Court, with utmost respect is not persuaded by the reasons given in the judgment by the Learned Judge of the Delhi High Court. This Court has not understood what is meant by "ethos of Constitution of India" and how could attitude of respondent nos. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is not binding upon me. Apart from that, this Court, with utmost respect is not persuaded by the reasons given in the judgment by the Learned Judge of the Delhi High Court. This Court has not understood what is meant by "ethos of Constitution of India" and how could attitude of respondent nos. 1 and 2 be perverse and violative of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case either before me or before the Delhi High Court that the respondent Organisation has appointed some persons who appeared in the said interview and has denied the same to others. Therefore, the question of discrimination which is prohibited under Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of appointment cannot be said to have taken place. 8. This court is of the opinion, that there is nothing known as "ethos of Constitution of India". When an action of the executive authorities is challenged as being in violation of the provisions of Constitution, the onus is normally upon the person, who challenged it, to indicate which particular principle has been violated. In this connection, reference may be made to the view expressed by S.R. Das, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. Bombay, reported in AIR 1951 Supreme Court Page-128. In that seven Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court S.R. Das, J, delivering the majority judgment at page 129 and pargraph-5 of the report made, following observations:– "An argument founded on what is claimed to be the spirit of the Constitution is always attractive for it has a powerful appeal to sentiment & emotion; but a Court of law has to gather the spirit of the Constitution from the language of the Constitution. What one may believe or think to be the spirit of the Constitution cannot prevail if the language of the Constitution does not support that view." 9. In my view and with utmost respect to the learned Judge of Delhi High Court, this Court, on the language of Articles 14 and 16, does not find anything 'perverse' in the action of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The view taken in Keshavan's case is still holding the field and has been followed in subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court. 10. 1 and 2. The view taken in Keshavan's case is still holding the field and has been followed in subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court. 10. Following this well known principles, this Court finds that the respondent authorities have not acted in derogation of any constitutional principle by not declaring the result or by not appointing anybody as a result of the said written test and interview. The stand of the respondent authorities is uniform and as there is no sanction of Department of Expenditure the recruitment process has been cancelled. Therefore, with great respect this Court does not find any reason to accept the preposition expressed in the judgment of the Delhi High Court. 11. Apart from that it is well settled that even if vacancies are notified and selection list are prepared, but if there is a policy decision of the Government not to fill-up the post, Courts cannot interfere with the same and direct the Government to make appointment. Reliance in this connection may be had to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Orissa vs. Hare Prasad Das & other reported in AIR 1998 S.C. page-375. In para-8 of the judgment, the Learned Judges of the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations and held that in such cases, it cannot be said that the Government is acting arbitrarily by not appointing those persons whose names are included in the selection list. 12. Here situation is even worse in as much as no selection list has been prepared. Therefore, there is no question of any appointment. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.