ASHIM KUMAR GUHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of 11 writ petitions has been filed before this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It seeks to undo the decision by the competent authority to hold afresh the written test for a process of selection to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force on the ground of rampant corruption and malpractice on an anonymous complaint. The grounds of challenge are jurisdictional, as shall appear from what is stated below. The immediate effect of such complaint, as alleged, was the cancellation of the selection process for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive)/ Railway Protection Force in the Eastern Railways by an order dated February 23, 2015, described in a later document to be an office order of the Inspector General/Chief Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force, (the respondent no. 3) communicated by the respondent no. 4, and a further order dated March 03, 2015 communicated by the respondent no. 4 as a continuation of the order dated February 23, 2015 of the respondent no. 3, whereby the selection process from the stage of written test was decided to be renewed. Since these 11 writ petitions being W.P. No. 8274(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8275(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8276(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8277(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8278(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8279(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8281(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8283(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8291(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8294(W) of 2015, W.P. No. 8296(W) of 2015 raise common questions of law and fact, with the consent of the parties, I have consolidated them and heard them analogously.

(2.) As it appears from the writ petitions, all the writ petitioners including the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 8274 (W) of 2015 are employed in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector/ Railway Protection Force with the Eastern Railways. An advertisement dated August 28, 2014 later cancelled and replaced by the advertisement dated October 14, 2014, was issued by the Eastern Railway authorities for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector/ Railway Protection Force in which the writ petitioners participated and went through the selection process upto the stage of written test and outdoor testing. It was mentioned expressly that the selection process would be under Rule 70 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and the rule specified in Director General's Standing Order No.87. A list was prepared of those who were thereafter eligible to be called for viva voce, but no panel was published or recommended for approval to the competent authority by the departmental promotion committee appointed by the respondent no. 3, comprising three Deputy Security Commissioners. An anonymous complaint addressed to the respondent no. 3 was received by him, during the continuance of the selection proceeding and before any panel of candidates selected for appointment was published, notified or even recommended for approval. This anonymous complaint pointed out serious lapses in the selection process some of which pertained to an allegation of special favour being shown to candidates who were informally sponsored by a named person, close to the chairman of the departmental promotion committee. For this reason, the result of the written test and outdoor tests were withheld from publication and the orders as referred to in paragraph 1 were passed. The writ petitioners have challenged both these orders and have come before this court in its writ jurisdiction seeking, inter alia, the principal reliefs as set out below:

(3.) While at paragraph 8 of the writ petition it has been alleged that after successful completion of the written examination and outdoor testing about 36 persons were asked on December 17, 2014 to report on December 24, 2014 at a venue and at a time fixed thereby, for viva voce, paragraph 9 abruptly alleges that a panel was prepared and submitted before the respondent no. 3 for approval, without however any allegation that the petitioners or any of them appeared for the viva voce. Out of these 36 persons, some of the persons were implicated by name in the anonymous complaint to be the recipient of special favour at the instance of the person mentioned in paragraph 2 above.