Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 84 (MP)

AJAY SAHU v. STATE OF M. P.

2004-01-28

KUMAR RAJARATNAM, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2004
ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of the order dated 15-10-2003 passed by the learned Single judge in W.P. No. 4994/2003. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No. 4 Jila Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Tikamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') published an advertisement dated 19-4-2003 inviting applications for the various posts. Pursuant to the advertisement, appellant No. 1 applied for the post of Stenographer and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 applied for the post of Steno typist. The appellants were permitted to appear in the written test held on 12-6-2003. In the said written test they succeeded. Call letters were issued to the successful candidates including the appellants directing them to appear for the interview to be held on 8-7-2003. However, the respondent No. 4 Bank vide letter dated 2-7-2003 intimated the appellants that the Commissioner/Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madhya Pradesh (respondent No.2) has directed the Bank to stay the process of selection and accordingly the interview will not be held on the said date. The appellants challenged the order dated 30th June 2003 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies by filing a writ petition. It was contended before the learned Single judge that the order dated 30-6-2003 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is arbitrary and illegal as no reasons have been assigned for staying the recruitment process started by the Bank in compliance of the permission earlier granted by the Registrar. It is not disputed that the selection process was about the 51 sanctioned posts only. Combating the allegations in the petition the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed the return. According to them the order dated 30-6-2003 was passed by the Registrar because there were reports of irregularities being committed by the Bank in the selection process. It was also stated in the return that although the advertisement was issued reserving the posts for scheduled castes, scheduled tribe and other backward classes but in actual selection, reservation policy has not been adhered to. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have also filed their return and in their return they supported the case of the appellants/petitioners. It was also stated in the return that although the advertisement was issued reserving the posts for scheduled castes, scheduled tribe and other backward classes but in actual selection, reservation policy has not been adhered to. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have also filed their return and in their return they supported the case of the appellants/petitioners. It was submitted in the return that the Bank had issued advertisement for the posts by strictly following the reservation policy and there was no irregularity or illegality committed in the selection process which was strictly in accordance to the sanction letter dated 4-4-2003 of the Registrar. It was also stated that the order of Registrar is arbitrary and unreasonable as no reason has been assigned by the Registrar while staying the recruitment process. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order disposed of the writ petition. The operative paragraph of the order of the learned Single Judge is as under: Perusal of the order P/XI indicates that no reasons have been mentioned by the Commissioner in the order for staying the process of selection. In the return it has been mentioned that though in advertisement reservation was specified, but complaint was received that it was not adhered to, details have not been furnished in the return how provision of reservation was violated. Final selection has not yet taken place, only written examination was held, interview which was to be held on 8-7-2003 has not been conducted. Thus, it appears prima facie that since final selection was not made the mention in the return that in selection process provision of reservation was not adhered to is a premature allegation levelled in the return. However, in the circumstances Secretary of the Department is directed to examine the matter and in case provision of reservation has not been violated so far, obviously process has to go on. Let the matter be examined within one month from today and appropriate order be passed by the Secretary concerned in the matter mentioning the reasons and the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner be also gone into by the Secretary. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge the appellants have filed this appeal. Let the matter be examined within one month from today and appropriate order be passed by the Secretary concerned in the matter mentioning the reasons and the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner be also gone into by the Secretary. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge the appellants have filed this appeal. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 and perused the record of the case, including the impugned order. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on 4-4-2003 Registrar, Cooperative Societies accorded the permission to the Bank for filling up the various posts. In pursuance to the aforesaid sanction the Bank issued the advertisement calling applications for the various posts applying the reservation policy. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the reservation policy out of 6 posts of Branch Manager, 1 post was reserved for Scheduled Caste, 1 post for Other Backward Classes and 4 posts were reserved for General category candidates. Single posts were available for Internal Auditor, Financial Analyst, Computer Programmer, Stenographer and Steno typist and hence not reserved. Out of 40 posts of Clerk cum Computer Operator, 9 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 2 for Scheduled Tribe, 6 for Other Backward Classes and 23 were for General Category. Thus, the main thrust of the submissions of the learned counsel was that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had duly complied with the reservation policy and the advertisement was issued strictly in consonance with the reservation policy. As per the appellants, they participated in the written examination held on 12-6-2003 and were declared successful. Thereupon they were called by the Bank for interview scheduled for 8th July 2003. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 staying the interview and further proceedings is arbitrary and has been passed without assigning any reasons and as such ought to have been quashed by the learned Single judge. Thereupon they were called by the Bank for interview scheduled for 8th July 2003. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 staying the interview and further proceedings is arbitrary and has been passed without assigning any reasons and as such ought to have been quashed by the learned Single judge. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge though held that impugned order passed by the Registrar contains no reasons for staying the process of selection and there being no justification for passing the said order, has erred in directing the Secretary of the department to examine the matter about the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner/Registrar. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that because some irregularities in the selection process were brought to the notice of the Registrar the order dated 30-6-2003 was passed by the Registrar staying the proceedings of the recruitment. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 Bank emphatically denied about any illegalities or irregularities in the recruitment process. The learned counsel on the basis of the reservations made in the selection process for filling of the posts demonstrated that there was no violation of reservation policy. After considering the rival submissions we find that except a bald allegation about the reported irregularities in the selection process no material was placed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to demonstrate as to how the Bank has not followed the reservation policy and has committed irregularity which led to passing of the order dated 30-6-2003 by the Registrar. In the absence of any reasons contained in the order and in the absence of any material justifying the passing of impugned order by the Registrar, the order of the Registrar cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Thandur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court has held that requirements of recording reasons in writing is implicit even in the absence of expressed statutory provision in that regard and every State action must satisfy the rule of non-arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court has held that requirements of recording reasons in writing is implicit even in the absence of expressed statutory provision in that regard and every State action must satisfy the rule of non-arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. E.G. Nambudiri, has held that if reasons are not mentioned in the order passed by any administrative authority the same if challenged in a Court of law, the competent authority can place the reasons before the Court which led to the passing of the order. In the present case except a statement in the return that there were reported irregularities nothing has been brought on record to justify the impugned order. The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, has held as under: [9] An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. In yet another judgment passed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, the Supreme Court while reiterating its earlier view expressed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) has held that judicial review of the action is to be judged by the reasons order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits are to be excluded. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent No. 2 Registrar was under an obligation to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent No. 2 Registrar was under an obligation to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. Registrar accorded permission to the Bank to select a particular number of candidates for particular posts, in pursuance of which the Bank issued advertisement, held written test and was about to conduct interviews at that point of time the Registrar quietly and without assigning any reason stopped the whole exercise. We do not think that such stand could have been adopted by the Registrar. We find that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have totally failed to demonstrate as to how the Bank has not followed the reservation policy. There was absolutely no material on record to justify the order dated 30th June 2003 passed by the Registrar. The order of the Registrar is not a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned by the Registrar for staying the recruitment proceedings. As laid down by the Supreme Court the action could have been justified even before the learned Single judge by showing adequate material on the basis the of which Registrar was left with no option but to pass the impugned order to stay the recruitment proceedings. The respondents No. 1 to 3 having failed to do so cannot be allowed to hold the enquiry and pass orders. In our view the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the order of the Registrar instead of directing the Secretary of the Co-operative Department to inquire into matter and to see whether the order of the Registrar was justified or not. In our view such a course would be against the law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to above. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned Single judge is set aside. The order dated 30th June 2003 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is quashed. Parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed