Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 915 (PAT)

Sitanshu Bhushan Verma v. Union Of India

2000-07-25

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also present is Mr. J.P.Karn, S.C.C.G. 2. In this writ petition there are 15 petitioners before this court who failed to get appointment on the basis of an advertisement, dated 31.12.1996 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur for filling up vacancies in about 70 posts of Assistant Station Master and some other posts. They seek to challenge before this court a common order, dated 29.5.2000 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench by which a number of applications filed on behalf of the different petitioners were dismissed. 3. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to point out the lacuna that though a number of applications were disposed of by the impugned order and hence, separate writ petitions in respect of each of the applications before the tribunal were required to be filed before this court, a single common writ petition has been filed and on that score alone it was liable to be dismissed. This court, however, does not propose to stand on this technicality. 4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length in support of this writ petition following which we proceed to dispose of this case on merits. 5. From the record we find that intialy the applications before the Tribunal were heard by one of its benches. At that stage there was a difference of opinion between the two members constituting the bench; the Judicial Member by his order allowed the applications filed by the petitioners while the Administrative Member dismissed the applications holding that the applicants were not entitled to any relief. Later on, the Vice Chairman to whom those applications were referred following the difference of opinion in the division bench, agreed with the view taken by the Administrative member and held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief and the applications filed by them were, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. The facts of the case are brief and simple. The appointments for which the above mentioned advertisement was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur, were to be made on the basis of a written test followed by a viva voce. It is an admitted position that on the basis of the written test 384 candidates, including the 15 petitioners, were shortlisted and were called for interview. The appointments for which the above mentioned advertisement was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur, were to be made on the basis of a written test followed by a viva voce. It is an admitted position that on the basis of the written test 384 candidates, including the 15 petitioners, were shortlisted and were called for interview. The interviews were held between January 15 to 19, 1998 and following the interviews a selection panel is said to have been prepared. The panel, however, never saw the light of the day and it was aborted by certain intervening circumstances which are as follows: It appears that while the selection procedure was going on the Railway Board undertook a review of the organisation of all the Railway Recruitment Boards in the country and the recruitment procedures followed by them. On 25.3.1998 it accordingly issued a direction that any written examination interview which might be scheduled between the date of that letter and 30.4.1998 should remain postponed. It may be noted here that though the interview in this case was over prior to 25.3.1998 and strictly speaking this case was not covered by the direction issued by the Railway Board in its letter, dated 25.3.1998, the panel of the select candidates, even if it was prepared, was never published. After making a review of the different Railway Recruitment Boards, the Railway Board finally issued a letter, dated 28.4.1998 containing the following directions: "Where the written tests have already been completed and interview have been held partially or fully but the panels have not been finalised then interviews will be conducted by a new Chairman-new Member Secretary with the revised composition of Interview Committee the instructions for which are being made separately, and only thereafter, the panels will be finalised and published." 7. Following the aforesaid directions all the. 384 short listed candidates, including the 15 petitioners were once again called for interview which was held in the month of October, 1998. 8. It was at that stage that the petitioners approached the Tribunal challenging the action of the Railway Recruitment Board in calling the candidates selected on the basis of the written test for fresh interview. 384 short listed candidates, including the 15 petitioners were once again called for interview which was held in the month of October, 1998. 8. It was at that stage that the petitioners approached the Tribunal challenging the action of the Railway Recruitment Board in calling the candidates selected on the basis of the written test for fresh interview. At the time of admission of the case the Tribunal did not restrain the respondent authorities from proceeding with the fresh interview but directed that any appointments made on that basis will be subject to the result of those cases before the Tribunal. 9. In the select list prepared on the basis of the interview held in October, 1998, the petitioners failed to find positions sufficiently high in the panel to be called for appointment and hence, they also sought to challenge the appointments finally made on the basis of the above mentioned advertisement. 10. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length that the case of the petitioners was not covered by the letter, dated 25.3.1998 and, therefore, it was obligatory upon the authorities to publish the panel prepared on the basis of the first interview (held in January, 1998) and to make appointments on that basis. We are unable to accept the submission. 11. It is not in dispute that before the list of candidates selected on the basis of the interviews held in January, 1998 could be published, direction came for holding fresh interviews as contained in the letter, dated 28.4.1998. Following the direction, fresh interviews were in fact held and on that basis a list of selected candidates was prepared and from that list appointments have been made. In these circumstances we do not feel inclined to interfere in this matter and to put to clock back, upsetting the earlier selection procedure. 12. It can not be lost sight of that what the petitioners are trying to challenging is clearly a policy decision which was applied uniformally and consistently to all appointments taking place all over the country. A writ court would interfere with a policy decision only if it were shown that it was unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. On this issue though Mr. Singh argued for quite sometime, he was unable to convince the court that the policy decision of the Railway Board suffered from any arbitrariness, unreasonableness or mala fide. A writ court would interfere with a policy decision only if it were shown that it was unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. On this issue though Mr. Singh argued for quite sometime, he was unable to convince the court that the policy decision of the Railway Board suffered from any arbitrariness, unreasonableness or mala fide. We are also satisfied that as the policy was applied uniformally and consistently to all the recruitment processes taking place in the country, there is no question of any adverse discrimination resulting to the petitioners. 13. Further, the question of any adverse discrimination would arise only in case it were known that the petitioners were occupying sufficiently higher positions in the panel prepared on the basis of the interviews held in January, 1998. As stated above, it is not known whether any panel was ever prepared on the basis of those interviews but this much is certain that the panel even if it was prepared never saw the light of the day and, therefore, the positions of the petitioners in that panel remains unknown. 14. It is also well settled that mere empanelment does not confer any right on the candidate and the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition for enforcement of any rights even on the basis of their assumed empanelment. 15. We also find from the order coming under challenge that the Tribunals Vice Chairman relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Anamica Mishra & Another V/s. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others, AIR 1990 SC 461 . In paras 5 and 6 of that decision it was observed as follows: "5. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of the Public Service Commission cancelling the written examination shall stand vacated. In lieu thereof we direct that the results of the written examination shall stand sustained and shall form the basis for the interview part of the recruitment and on the basis of the two examinations and in terms of the recruitment rules fresh selections shall be made. We would clarify that with the dismissal of the special leave petition the selection of the two scheduled caste candidates and five backward class candidates has become final and would not be disturbed. "6. We would clarify that with the dismissal of the special leave petition the selection of the two scheduled caste candidates and five backward class candidates has become final and would not be disturbed. "6. The State Public Service Commission should have been more careful in dealing with the matter so that four years in the process of recruitment would not have been lost and the public cause would not have suffered; public time would not have been wasted in requiring re-doing of what had once been done and the litigation could have been avoided. We have also not been able to appreciate the justification for cancellation of the written part of the recruitment examination and drive the candidates to litigation. On the facts alleged we direct that the recruitment which is now to be re-done by completing the interview examination should be finalised within four months hence." 16. Having heard counsel for the petitioners at some length, we find that the learned Vice Chairman has taken a correct view of the matter and in our view no case is made out for any interference in this matter by this court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.