KAMLESH KUMAR KAMAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of CWJC No. 13635 of 2007, and are aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order cancelling the merit list for promotion from the cadre of Head Constable to Sub-Inspector, has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellants are Constables and Head Constables in the services of the Railway Protection Force and had, on the relevant date, put in more than ten years of service. The respondent authorities had issued notice dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure-1), inviting applications from Constable and Head Constables of the Railway Protection Force (Executive Branch), for consideration for promotion to the 27 vacant posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police under the R.P.F. Rules, 1987. The appellant was an applicant. The respondent authorities prepared a list of 399 eligible candidates (Annexure-2), for consideration for promotion who were invited for written examination and practical test. After completion of these stages of the selection process, a list of 81 candidates was prepared and was notified on 7.2.2006 (Annexure-3), who were empanelled for the viva-voce test. After the stage of viva-voce was over, the authorities notified a list of 27 candidates who had been provisionally empanelled for the purpose of promotion (Annexure-4). The same was subject to vigilance clearance and successful completion of training. This was followed by communication dated 5.1.2007 (Annexure-5), whereby the subordinate officials were directed to release the empanelled candidates for the training course after subjecting them to medical test. After completion of the training course, a three-member Board submitted its report dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure-6), about their performance, inter alia, stating therein that ".....the final result is submitted herewith. for kind perusal and approval please". It appears that, in view of the complaints received about the purity of the selection process, the same was subjected to an enquiry by the Vigilance Department of the Railway Protection Force. The Vigilance Department submitted its report dated 29.6.2007 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), which found serious defects in the selection process. This was followed by order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-7), notifying cancellation of the entire selection process and impugned in the writ proceeding. This was followed by the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-9), reiterating the same position and notifying three reasons for cancellation of the selection process, and impugned in the writ proceeding.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned orders, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the orders dated 3.1.2007 (Annexure-4), and 7.3.2007 (Annexure-6), were final merit lists and, therefore, should have been allowed to take full effect He has advanced elaborate submissions to discredit the three reasons assigned in the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-9), to cancel the selection process. He submits in the same vein that, in view of the three reasons assigned in the impugned order dt.31.3.2008, the authorities cannot be permitted to improve upon the same by affidavits. He relies on the judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 AIR(SC) 851. He aiso submits that the three reasons assigned in the impugned order dt. 31.3.2008 are at best mere irregularities, do not go to the root of the matter, and need not result in cancellation of the entire selection process. He submits in the same vein that it is at best a case of procedural irregularities, not a case of widespread malaise and, therefore, every effort should be made to preserve the selection process. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh, 2009 3 PLJR 878, to which one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) was a party. He also submits that the impugned orders were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, and no opportunity was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. He lastly submits that the enquiry report is a mere catalogue of allegations and, in any view of the matter, the findings are perverse.