NARENDER YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner claims for a direction to quash a letter dated 19th April, 2000, by which his candidature to the post of Assistant Commandant was rejected. He claims for directions for production of the relevant official records, and also for directions to the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner to the said post of Asst. Commandant.

(2.) The brief facts are that sometime in January-February, 1999, the respondents advertised for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant, in the Border Security Force (BSF). The petitioner applied for that post. On July 11, 1999 a written examination for the post of Assistant Commandant in Central Po1ice Organizations was held at New Delhi. Subsequently, on October 26, 1999, the petitioner was told that he was successful in the written examination. The respondents, vide letter dated 5th November, 1999, asked the petitioner to appear for physical efficiency test scheduled for 9th December, 1999. It is stated that during that physical examination, the petitioner s physical measurements were incorrectly recorded; as a result of which, he represented to the authorities. His representations went unheeded. Consequently, he approached this Court, by filing a writ petition (WP 7543/99) which was disposed of by an order dated 20th January, 2000. The Court s order stated as follows:

(3.) After the above order, the respondents conducted the petitioner s medical test on 22-02-2000; his measurements were found to be in accordance with the standards. He apparently qualified in the physical efficiency test later, and was called for interview, held on 23- 02-2000. Out of 2000 candidate, 125 candidates were called for interview. The petitioner alleges that he was interviewed by one Shri Rana, DIG of the Border Security Force. Later, in April, 2000, he was informed that he had secured a total of 225 marks out of 500 in the entire selection process and had not been successful. He alleges that the same Mr. Rana had disqualified him in the first instance, on the ground of his not measuring up to the prescribed physical standards and that his participation in the interview prejudiced him (the petitioner). It is alleged that the said Shri Rana was biased, and harboured a grudge because the petitioner had approached the court on the earlier occasion and his complaint was ultimately vindicated, because he was found to be qualified in the medical test and physical efficiency test. This was resented by the said Shri Rana who made sure not to properly evaluate his performance during the interview.