OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 14.2.2004 issued by the respondent No. 2 inviting applications for licence of Rail Travel Service Agent at Allahabad so far as it relates to two vacancies for which the selection of the petitioners was made on 12.11.2003. The petitioners also seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue licence authorising the petitioners to act as Rail Travel Service Agent.

(2.) The brief narration of the facts relating to the writ petition are these : In pursuance of an advertisement made by the respondent No. 3 in various newspapers including 'Times of India' published on 22.4.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) inviting applications in the prescribed form for the grant of licence of Rail Travel Service Agent the petitioners submitted the application forms (Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition) along with requisite documents namely agreement of lease of business premises, solvency certificate, character certificate, income tax clearance certificate, site-plan of building, telephone bills and experience certificate. After submission of the application forms a new division of railway, i.e., North Central Railway was carved out. The application forms submitted by the petitioners for selection as Rail Travel Service Agent were transfer. ?d to the office of the North Central Railway. The application forms were process, ; by the respondent No. 2 who vide letter dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) intimated the petitioners that the selection of the candidates for Rail Travel Service Agent would be made on 28.10.2003 by lottery draw. Out of 13 applications six forms including that of petitioners were found fulfilling the requisite qualifications. The lottery draw was postponed on 28.10.2003 and the petitioners were informed that the next date of lottery draw shall be communicated to them. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 5.11.2003 (Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition) informed the petitioners that their names have been included in the list of the qualified applicants and the lottery draw would be held on 12.11.2003 at 3 p.m. Both the petitioners were declared successful in the lottery draw. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 assured and made an announcement that the licences would be issued within a week. Sri A.K. Singh and Sri V.K. Pandey, Commercial Movement Inspectors, inspected the business premises of the petitioners and on being satisfied assured that the licence will be issued within a week. The respondents having failed to issue licence in pursuance of the selection made by lottery draw on 12.11.2003 despite repeated requests, reminders and representations, the petitioners have been compelled to file the present writ petition. The petitioners have stated that the re-advertisement made on 14.2.2004 for licence of Rail Travel Service Agent in relation to vacancies for which selection of the petitioners was made on 1'2.11.2003 is wholly arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) On behalf of other respondents counter affidavit of Sri Sunil Kumar Garg, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad has been filed. The respondents have admitted that in pursuance of the advertisement made on 22.4.2002 for the grant of licences of Rail Travel Service Agent, the petitioners applied for and were declared successful in the lottery draw. It is alleged that on scrutiny under Para 1 of the Railway Rules the petitioners not possessing the required experience their candidature was rejected and on 14.2.2004 fresh advertisement was made inviting applications for Rail Travel Service Agent. The respondents have stated that condition No. 24 of the advertisement clearly stipulated that the railway administration reserves its right to reject the applications without assigning any reason. According to the respondents, after the lottery draw nominated committee on going through the papers rejected the lottery draw held on 12.11.2003 as none of the candidate produced experience certificate as required under condition No. 1 of the advertisement. The petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit have reiterated the facts stated earlier. The petitioners have annexed the photo copies of the experience certificates (Annexures-RA-1 and 2 to the rejoinder affidavit) which were submitted along with the application forms. The contention of the petitioners is that inclusion of their names in the list of qualified applicants, indicates that their application forms were complete in every respect. According to the petitioners reservation of right to reject the application forms without assigning any reason does not confer any power upon the railway administration to act arbitrarily. The petitioners have stated that in the fresh advertisement made on 14.2.2004, there is omission of condition of experience in Passengers Travel Business.