SUNIL KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this court for quashing the order dated 30. 4. 1990 (Annexure-1) passed by Respondent no. 3, the Commandent, Central Industrial Security Force, and further for issuing appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties to the post of constable as per the letter of appointment dated 20. 3. 1990 (Annexure-2 ).

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that in response to the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment of some constables under the establishment of respondent-Central Industrial Security Force, visakhapatnam (hereinafter mentioned as "the C. I. S. F. "), the petitioner offered his candidature. The petitioner was asked to appear at the selection test on 19. 3. 1990 for selection and appointment to the vacant post of constable in C. I. S. F. In the selection process, physical test, written test and medical test were conducted under the chairmanship of Respondent No. 3 and, a panel of merit list was prepared. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, by the appointment letter dated 20. 3. 1990, intimated the petitioner that he had been selected for appointment to the post of constable in the c. I. S. F. and directed him to report before the Assistant Commandant, C. I. S. F. Unit, i. S. R. C. Bangalore (Karnataka) on 25. 5. 1990 at 08. 00 hours. A copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition, the relevant parts whereof are as follows : -2. You have been provisionally selected for the post of constable in c. I. S. F. You are directed to report to the assistant Commandant C. I. S. F. Unit, i. S. R. O. Bangalore (Karnataka) on 25. 5. 90 at 08. 00 hrs, if your are willing to accept this offer of appointment.

(3.) YOU are also informed that if you are found fit after a re-check of measurement at concentration centre only then you will be finally selected and sent for training to Training Centre. Before the petitioner joined, in response to the aforesaid letter of appointment, by the impugned order dated 30. 4. 1990, Respondent No. 3 intimated the petitioner that his appointment by order dated 20. 3. 1990 was treated as cancelled and advised him not to report at concentration centre as intimated by the earlier letter dated 20. 3. 1990 (Annexure-2 ). A copy of the said order dated 30. 4. 1990 is annexed as Annexure '1' to this petition, which reads as follows : -