MAHIPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both petitions, W.P.(C) No.6386/2020 by seven personnel of the respondent Border Security Force (BSF) and W.P.(C) No.6387/2020 by 46 personnel of the respondent BSF seek, (i) mandamus to cancel the entire result of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2017 2018 held for appointment of Assistant Commandants (General Duty) (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), as far as BSF is concerned; (ii) mandamus for re-conduct of the examination afresh for BSF candidates who, in the earlier examination aforesaid, were issued admit cards; (iii) mandamus to have the said subsequent examination conducted under the guidance of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC); (iv) mandamus directing Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) which had conducted the examination (of result whereof cancellation is sought) to provide the answer key of Paper-I and Paper-II and to disclose the marks secured by the petitioners in the examination; (v) mandamus directing the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets of Paper-III of the petitioners, to enable the petitioners to assess their performance; and, (vi) independent judicial inquiry to investigate into the various anomalies with respect to the examination, as far as BSF is concerned. In addition, in W.P.(C) No.6386/2020, relief of quashing the show cause notices issued to the petitioners no.6 & 7 therein, is also sought.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners, that (i) the advertisement dated 3rd July, 2019 inviting applications from serving Sub-Inspectors (GD), Inspectors (GD) and Subedar Major (GD) for the post of Assistant Commandants (GD) in BSF, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), through LDCE, as per Recruitment Rules of respective Forces, was published; (ii) all the four para-military forces i.e. BSF, CRPF, SSB and ITBP are established by the Government of India for different specialised purpose but they, for the sake of administrative convenience, jointly conduct, every year, a LDCE, thereby giving Subordinate Officers an opportunity for promotion in their respective forces,; (iii) the responsibility of conduct of the examination process is undertaken one by one by the four para-military forces every year, on rotational basis; (iv) the petitioners applied and were issued admit card to appear in the examination scheduled in three sittings, all on 2nd February, 2020; (v) there were number of discrepancies in the conduct of examination at the particular examination centre in which the petitioners appeared, which not only affected their performance in the examination but also vitiated the very purpose of conducting an examination; (vi) the candidates posted at one unit/battalion were made to sit next to each other rather than randomly, meaning thereby that candidates seating next to each other were known to one another; (vii) distance between the seating plan was negligible, with hardly any gap between two candidates and which allowed candidates to do mass copying; (viii) some of the candidates even exchanged question papers/answer sheets with each other; (ix) the question papers were not distributed correctly in few rooms; the BSF candidates were given the question paper meant for SSB candidates and vice versa; this led to total chaos in the examination hall; though extra time was given but it was not enough to compensate for the lost time; (x) the answer sheets were taken by the invigilator before the assured time; (xi) examination started at different time in different rooms and which led to the situation of noise created by the candidates in one room while leaving, after their examination, disturbing the candidates in the other room who were still writing the examination; (xii) Paper-III took place in noisy environment and that too without adhering to the time table in the admit card; (xiii) certain wrong questions were asked in the examination, which also led to total confusion to the already chaotic environment; (xiv) prescribed time was not given to attempt the third paper; Paper-III started almost after 10- 15 minutes of scheduled time and although assurance was given that extra time would be given but the invigilator took away the paper from the candidates without giving an opportunity to utilize the whole of the prescribed time for attempting the paper; (xv) though the petitioners complained to the invigilator, but in vain; (xvi) the petitioners made representations vide letters dated 3rd February, 4th February and 6th February, 2020; (xvii) despite the receipt of representations, the respondent no.2 carried on with the recruitment process and declared the examination result of Paper-I and Paper-II, within two days of the examination i.e. on 4th February, 2020, as was scheduled and 1046 candidates in all were declared pass/successful and of which 507 belonged to BSF; the name of the petitioner no.1 in W.P.(C) No.6386/2020 and the petitioners no.5 to 46 in W.P.(C) No.6387/2020 figured in the list of successful candidates/candidates who had passed; (xviii) despite the mixed result of the petitioners, they were very hopeful that the respondent no.2 will take the necessary action of cancellation of the examination after making necessary investigation with respect to the various anomalies in the conduct of examination; and, (xix) the aforesaid result was declared without disclosing the answer key.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners states that the only difference between the two petitions is that while the seven petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6386/2020 earlier filed W.P.(C) No.1947/2020 titled Mahipal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., detailing all the aforesaid facts and seeking cancellation of the result of the entire examination with respect to all CAPFs and seeking re-conduct thereof and further seeking inquiry into the irregularities and mismanagement in the conduct of the examination, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6387/2020 had not filed any earlier petition. Else it is stated that the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.6387/2020 are identical to that in W.P.(C) No.6386/2020.