AMAR NATH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petition deal with the same controversy. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in writ petition No. 38406 of 1996. With the consent of the Parties Counsel, counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in the writ petition No. 38406/ 96 shall also be read in the connected writ petition No. 36605 of 1997. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Lalji Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By means of these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the employment notice No. 1 of 1.996 issued on 1.11.1996 for recruitment of the Constables in Railway Protection Force (for short 'RPF) be quashed and the respondents be directed not to appoint any candidate selected in pursuance of the said notice of employment. It is further prayed that the recruitment made in pursuance of the employment notice No. 2/94 be directed to be given effect to and the respondents be commanded to declare the result of the said recruitment and the petitioners, if successful, may be appointed. The facts leading to the present two petitions lie in a very narrow compass. The woodcut profile of the case is as follows:In order to fill up 485 vacancies of Constables in RPF in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 in North Eastern Railway, an employment notice No. 2 of 1994 was published on 2.6.1995. In all 1, 10, 669 candidates applied for the said post out of which amount 90,000 forms were found in order. After scrutiny of the forms, call letters were issued to 78,000 candidates, out-of whom 24,563 appeared for physical and efficiency test between the period 6.5.1995 to 6.8.1995. The Railway Board, by letter dated 18.4.1995, constituted a committee for recruitment, which comprised of

(3.) Above irregularities were brought to the notice of the Chairman of the Recruitment Committee, namely, Sri Mewa Lal and he was asked to remove and rectify the irregularities and mistakes in the result as pointed out by the Internal Scrutiny Committee appointed by the Chief Security Commissioner, Gorakhpur. Sri Mewa Lal, it is alleged, refused to rectify and correct the mistakes/ irregularities. The Director-General, R.P.F.. taking into consideration the various irregularities, short-comings and on the ground that there were serious complaints of corruption, cancelled the whole process of recruitment, as well as result. He, it appears issued certain directions to maintain high standards and excellence in the recruitment process as well as transparency. On 4.9. 1996, a news item was published that the recruitment held in pursuance of the employment notice No. 2/94 has been cancelled and rescinded. Another employment notice No. 1/96 was issued and published in local dailies on 1.11.1996 inviting applications for 800 posts of Constables, RPF limiting the applicants from the Provinces of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.