Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 880 (JHR)

Vikash Kumar Gupta v. Union Of India

2018-04-18

ANANDA SEN

body2018
ORDER Ananda Sen, J. - In this writ application, the petitioners pray for a declaration that the General Instructions as contained in Para 11(v) of the advertisement published is non-east and is arbitrary. They further pray for certiorari for quashing the letter dated 07.01.2017, as contained in Memo No. 1007 and letter of same dated contained in Memo No. 1033 whereby it has been intimated that further process of recruitment of Constable (Tradesman) has been terminated with immediate effect because of administrative reasons. Further prayer has been made to appoint the petitioners since they were successful in the written test, physical test and medical test, after taking into consideration that vacancies exist. 2. An advertisement was published for recruitment for the post of Constable (Tradesman) male in Border Security Force for the year 2016-17. Petitioners applied for the post of Constable (Tradesman) in the trade of cook and they claim that they were successful in the physical test, trade test and written test. Petitioners were waiting for their appointment letter, but, they were communicated that further process of recruitment is terminated because of some administrative reasons. These letters dated 7th January 2017 are addressed to both the petitioners. The petitioners, aggrieved by the said letters, had moved this Court, challenging the same and also challenging the declaration in Para 11(v) of the General Instructions, wherein it has been mentioned that Border Security Force reserves the right to make changes or cancel or postpone the recruitment process without assigning any reason. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Clause (v) of Para 11 is absolutely arbitrary. He submits that the entire process cannot be scraped without assigning any reason. He further submits that the letters by which the process has been scraped is absolutely bad, as it has been mentioned that because of some administrative reasons, the process has been terminated. He submits that the respondents were duty bound to mention as to what is the administrative exigencies, which forced the respondents to scrap the entire examination process. Entire process, which has been adopted by the Border Security Force, cannot be approved and has to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are liable to be appointed. 4. He submits that the respondents were duty bound to mention as to what is the administrative exigencies, which forced the respondents to scrap the entire examination process. Entire process, which has been adopted by the Border Security Force, cannot be approved and has to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are liable to be appointed. 4. By referring to the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that vide letter dated 30th March, 2017, petitioners have been informed that there was some mal-practice and irregularities noticed in the recruitment process, so the entire process has been set aside. He submits that it is well within the jurisdiction of the respondents to set aside the process only because of mal-practice and irregularities. He also submits that it is well within the jurisdiction of the appointing authority to cancel an appointment process before a person is appointed. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Constable (Tradesman), pursuant to which the petitioners applied. They claim that they were successful in the examination. The entire process was cancelled by Border Security Force on the ground that there were some mal-practices and irregularities in the said process. In this case, I find that the process was scrapped and a reason has been assigned. The reason for scrapping the said process is mal-practices and irregularities. If there is an allegation of mal-practice in an appointment process, the same needs to be scrapped and there cannot be any alternative than scrapping the said process. A process of appointment in a public post should be free from all vices and no one should be given any chance to question the said process, especially, on the ground of mal-practice and illegalities. It is the appointing authority, who has to take the call and come to the conclusion as to whether the process is vitiated by mal-practices, and once the appointing authority comes to the said conclusion that there was mal-practice in the said process, there can be no other option than to scrap the same. What is the extent of mal-practice, for which the process is sought to be scrapped, is the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority, which cannot be questioned by a candidate. What is the extent of mal-practice, for which the process is sought to be scrapped, is the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority, which cannot be questioned by a candidate. On subjective satisfaction, if the appointing authority concludes that there is some mal-practice or irregularity in the process of appointment, it is well within their jurisdiction to cancel the appointment process. 6. In this case, I find that the letter dated 30th March, 2017 issued to these petitioners by the respondents clearly mentions that due to some mal-practice and irregularities, the recruitment process is being terminated. I find that the respondents have supplied a reason for scrapping the process and have committed no illegality in terminating the said process. 7. Furthermore, it is well settled that the petitioners have got no right to be appointed in a particular post [Ref. [i] (1996) 10 SCC 742 - Hanuman Prasad & Others v. Union of India & Anr. ; [ii] (2003) 11 SCC 768 - Union of India & Others v. Tarun K. Singh & Others] . 8. In absence of any right also, I find no merit in this writ application. This writ application, accordingly, stands dismissed. .