UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 7285 of 1990. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of respondent -Sunil Kumar Dwivedi and directed the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, in short), Vishakhapattanam to accept his joining on the post of Constable pursuant to the order of provisional appointment dated 20.3.90. The relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) ON 19.3.90 pursuant to advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment of Constables issued by the Commandant, CISF, Vishakhapattanam, test for selection of suitable candidates was held at district police parade ground, Dharwad in the State of Karnataka. A select list was prepared and the selected candidates were issued provisional appointment letters on 20.3.90, asking them to report to the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, ISRO, Bangalore on 25.5.90. The respondent who was placed at Sl. no. 15 in the said list was also issued provisional appointment letter. His appointment, however, was subject to being found fit after "a re -check of measurement". On 26.3.90 the select list was sent to the DIG, CISF, Madras for approval. The DIG did not approve the list as the same had not been prepared keeping in view the reservation roster. It was found that out of 30 available vacancies only 18 of them were available for the general category candidates. On 9.4.90 the list was accordingly returned. Thereafter the Commandant, CISF prepared a revised list as per the reservation roster on 28/30.4.90. The respondent did not find place in the said list. On 30.4.90 he was informed that his appointment be treated as cancelled. The brother of the respondent filed representation to the DIG on 25.5.90. The respondent was asked to appear before the Selection Board, Mertarra in the district of Coorg (Karnataka) on 20.8.90. The respondent did not appear before the Selection Board on the ground that he had received the communication very late. On 25.10.90 he was again asked to appear before another Selection Board at Tumkur (Karnataka) on 19.11.90. The respondent instead of availing of the chance of fresh selection, filed the writ petition in this Court on 15.11.90 seeking direction to the Commandant to accept his joining on the post in question pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 20.3.90 itself and for quashing the order dated 30.4.90 cancelling the said appointment. There is no dispute about the facts stated hereinabove.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge on behalf of the appellants, the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction was taken on the ground that the selection process having been held in the State of Karnataka and the orders having also been issued from there, no part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable in this Court. The learned Single Judge rejected the plea. On merit, the learned Single Judge found that candidates placed below the respondent in the general category itself having been allowed to join, the action of the authorities was arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. The order dated 30.4.90 cancelling the appointment was accordingly set aside and direction was issued to the Commandant to accept the respondent's joining.