MUKESH BABOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As many as 100 posts of Constables (G.D.) were advertised by the AGIGP Central Reserve Police Ajmer (Respondent No.2).in the month of October, 1997. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (G.D.) and faced the selection process. Vide letter dated April 18, 1998 the petitioner was given offer of appointment and he was required to appear in the office of Respondent No.2 on May 1, 1998. When the petitioner appeared on May 1, 1998 in the office of respondent No.2 for the purpose of joining his duties he was intimated that the appointments for the post of Constable were cancelled and intimation to that effect had already been sent vide letter dated April 30, 1998. Thereafter the respondent No.2 again advertised 75 posts of Constable (G.D.) by publishing advertisement in daily News Paper dated May 29, 1998. Being aggrieved against this act of respondent No.2 the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The respondents in their return admitted this fact that the name of the petitioner was placed in the select list of general category candidates and letter of appointment was issued to him but an error was committed in drawing up select list which was rectified before the petitioner could join the post, therefore a telegram followed by letter dated April 30, 1998 was sent to the petitioner cancelling the offer of appointment. In the combined select list of 65 candidates the petitioner could not find place therefore he was not given appointment. It was further pleaded that the subsequent advertisement of 75 posts had no relevancy with the earlier advertisement.

(3.) I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material placed on record.