MAHESH GOPALAN Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Constable on 01-06-1999 and worked at various places throughout the country. There exists a facility of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), which enables the departmental candidates to compete for the posts of Sub-Inspector. The LDCE notification was issued in the year 2010 by the respondents proposing to fill 576 vacancies of Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner appeared for the examination and was selected. An order of appointment was issued on 16-11-2010 by the Commandant, CISF, 5th Battalion, Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh, 4th respondent herein, and he was required to report to the Principal of CISF training institute at Arakkonam for basic training. Accordingly, the petitioner reported duty. However, within two weeks, the 4th respondent issued proceedings, dated 30-11-2010, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not meet the eligibility criteria. The petitioner was required to return the order of appointment. The petitioner challenges the order, dated 30-11-2010.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he was selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector on the basis of his performance in the written examination and on valuation of the service record, and that there was absolutely no basis for the 4th respondent in withdrawing the order of appointment. He submits that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice since neither any show cause notice was issued to him nor any reasons are mentioned in it.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter - affidavit is filed. The fact that the petitioner was permitted to appear in the written test and he was selected on being found to have fulfilled the prescribed conditions, it is not disputed. It is, however, stated that a minor lapse occurred when the service record of the petitioner being evaluated. It is stated that a candidate must have good record for a period of four years preceding the selection, and that in the case of the petitioner, it emerged that in the year 2008 verbal counselling was given to him and on the basis of the same, his performance for the period between 01-03-2008 and 31-12-2008 was assessed as 'average'. This, according to the respondents would disable the petitioner from being considered. It is also their case that mere issuance of the order of appointment does not confer any right on the petitioner and withdrawal of the same on realizing the mistake cannot be treated as punishment.