Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 133 (GAU)

Association of The Candidates v. State of Manipur

2004-02-23

S.K.KAR

body2004
JUDGMENT S.K. Kar, J. 1. The Petitioner, Elangbam Mangi Singh, claiming himself as the acting Secretary of the Association of candidates who attended DPC for appointment of 690 Rifleman, presented this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution and intending to reopen the issues agitated earlier in Civil Rule No. 426 of 1998 in this Court. 2. To be short and concise, the association having 1000 members filed C.R. No. 426 of 1998 against the Respondents to declare result of the recruitment test for filling up of 960 (Sic) posts of rifleman in the Manipur Police Department. High Court by order dated 9.12.98 disposed of the Civil Rule with a direction that the Petitioners will be at liberty to approach this Court once again if aggrieved by any action of the Respondent government. It is followed by a contempt petition, being contempt case No. 34 of 1999 and finally the Government declared result of 20 candidates only on 8.2.1999. 3. That by this time the candidates who appeared in the aforesaid recruitment test of 460 rifleman have now crossed age limit of 26 years and their entry into Government service is now barred by law. There was subsequent advertisement dated 14.9.2001 for recruitment of 675 rifleman and from the advertisement it appears that particulars regarding candidates are the same for which earlier posts of 690 rifleman were advertised and there is every scope to accommodate these candidates who appeared earlier to contest or to be selected in connection with the latter advertisement. That depriving the members of the Association for recruitment to the aforesaid posts of rifleman will create adverse situation etc. 4. The petition was contested by the Respondents who denied all the allegations contending, inter alia, by stating that there were vacancies of (50 + 670 =) 720 rifleman in the year 1995. But, the DGP declared result of only 50 candidates on 5.12.1995. Thereafter, by order dated 13.3.1996 the Government had cancelled the selection of 670 candidates on ground of illegality. Some of those dismissed candidates presented C.R. No. 395/96 and 500/1996 for quashing the said notification. However, court dismissed the two Civil Rule on 2.12.1996. Afterward process started for recruitment of 670 rifleman by notification dated 6.1.1997. Thereafter, by order dated 13.3.1996 the Government had cancelled the selection of 670 candidates on ground of illegality. Some of those dismissed candidates presented C.R. No. 395/96 and 500/1996 for quashing the said notification. However, court dismissed the two Civil Rule on 2.12.1996. Afterward process started for recruitment of 670 rifleman by notification dated 6.1.1997. Thereafter, due process of selection was taken up when the court cases were decided and 670 candidates were appointed in compliance with the Court's order. That appointment of the Petitioner to the vacant posts, falling vacant subsequently, cannot be done without adhering to due process of recruitment rules and procedures. Accordingly, it was submitted that the writ petition is without merit and may be rejected. 5. The petitions filed an additional affidavit to say that in the DPC held from 03.02.1997 till 21.3.97, as many as 9,164 candidates were sponsored by the employment exchange out of which 6,632 appeared for physical efficiency test and 4421 candidates including some of the members of the association were declared to have been successful in the physical efficiency test. Viva voce test was followed. But result of the said test has not yet been declared giving rise to cause of action for writ petition. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on both sides, considered the submissions made and perused the relevant records and documents placed before the Court. 7. The learned G.A. appearing for the Respondents has referred to the law given in AIR 2001 SC 1691 in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chairman, School Service Commission and Ors. I have gone through the citation wherein it was held that 'a person if not empanelled would have no right to make any claim for appointment'. The Petitioner could not place any document to show that selection process involving them was taken up and was completed, but result has not been declared. The Petitioners only could place into service the document which has been annexed as Annexure A/6 to the writ petition. It mentions appointment of 20 persons as rifleman in police department. The Petitioners also could not display convincingly before this Court the existence of any particular number of vacancies on the date of filing of the petition. Moreover, this is a matter already agitated in the 2001. 8. It mentions appointment of 20 persons as rifleman in police department. The Petitioners also could not display convincingly before this Court the existence of any particular number of vacancies on the date of filing of the petition. Moreover, this is a matter already agitated in the 2001. 8. The question of the recruitment process is dated back in 1995-1997 and by order dated 3.10.2001 this Court refused to stay the recruitment process on the ground that no case was made out for granting such interim relief. It is clearly stated by the Petitioners that result of 20 candidates out of 690 were declared vide Annexure-A/6. Therefore, rest of the candidates, who might be the Petitioners here, were not empanelled candidates and accordingly as per the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Sharma (supra) the Petitioners have no right to agitate the matter in any Court of law. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that no other candidates is to be considered without being given a scope to the Petitioners or without considering their case before hand. I find there is no substance in such submission which is vague and uncertain. Situated such, I find a writ court cannot exercise its discretionary power without getting evidence about the rights of the Petitioner. Moreover, this petition was filed by the Secretary of an unregistered association maintainability of which is also doubtful. It is the well settled position of law that all recruitments are to be preceded by following any recognized procedure for the purpose which is legal and valid and made by the public advertisement etc. 9. In the result, I find there is no merit in the petition which stands dismissed. However, I decline to make order on costs. Petition dismissed.