MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC for Respondents No. 1 to 5. None appears for Respondent No. 6.

(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the order No. 12016/0l/86-Estt/6745-48 dated 26.02.2007 whereby the private Respondent No. 6, Shri Bapan Ranjan Dev was appointed as Syces with effect from 15.02.2007 by the Director, North Eastern Police Academy at Umsaw, Barapani, Meghalaya.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that in response to advertisement dated 7.8.2006 issued by the Respondent-Director, the Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Syces. He was called for interview and appeared the First Trade Test on 23.8.2006 and thereafter he was called for personal interview on 24.8.2006, in which four candidates including the Petitioner appeared. He was found qualified in the personal interview and was asked to appear in the Final Trade Test to be held on 1.9.2006. In the final Trade Test, four candidates namely, (1) Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma (Petitioner), (2) Shri Mahesh Kumar, (3) Shri Bapan Ranjan Dev (Respondent No. 6) and (4) Shri Khetromoni Singh appeared. In the said Final Trade Test, the Selection Board gave the candidates 15 minutes time for saddle fitting on the horse and to take out the horse from the stable and Anr. 15 minutes time for riding the horse continuously in the field. It is stated that all the four candidates entered into the stable and took the horses in the field except Shri Khetromoni Singh, who could not take the horse from the stable. Other three candidates including the Petitioner took the horse in the field and started fitting saddle to the horse. Shri Bapan Ranjan Dev, Respondent No. 6, could not fit the belt/saddle on the horse and under direction of one of the Board Members, Shri Sukhdew Ram (Syces) helped him and fitted the saddle on the horse to which Anr. Syces, Shri Kashmira Singh made a strong objection. It is also stated that both Shri Mahesh Kumar and Bapan Ranjan Dev (Respondent No. 6) fell down from the horses and soon thereafter they left the field as well as the compound and only the Petitioner had been able to ride the horse continuously for the stipulated time of 15 minutes. The Petitioner claims that he is the only candidate out of the aforesaid four candidates who became successful in the interview. Inspite of such success, the Petitioner was not selected and in his place Respondent No. 6 was selected and appointed to the post of Syces. The Petitioner made an appeal before the Respondent-Director to enquire into the whole matter of illegal selection and appointment, but he refused to order enquiry as demanded by the Petitioner. The Petitioner demanded justice but he failed to get the same and ultimately he approached this Court earlier by filing a W.P. (C) No. 260 (SH) 2006, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. While the said writ petition was pending, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi demanding the enquiry into the aforesaid matter and in response to the same, the Home Ministry requested the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong to enquire into the matter and accordingly the matter was enquired by the CID of Meghalaya. Subsequently, he filed Anr. with petition, namely W.P. (C) No. 349 (SH) 2008, but the same was also withdrawn in as much as the Petitioner already received the enquiry report dated 11.4.2008 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EO. Inspite of submission of enquiry report in favour of the Petitioner, the Respondent authorities did not take any steps for cancellation of the appointment of Respondent No. 6 and appointment of the Petitioner in his place as Syces. On this backdrop, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for cancellation of the impugned appointment order issued by the Respondent authorities in favour of Respondent No. 6.