Full Judgment
R.B. Mishra, J.
1. All these three writ petitions above mentioned are being disposed of by a common judgment by consent of the partiessince identical questions of law and facts are involved. Writ Petition No. 29035 of 1999 is the leading case.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the advertisement employment notice No. 1 of 1996 (Annexure-1) published in the Pioneer dated 1.11.1996 by Northern Railway and seeking direction by way of mandamus to the respondents to declare the result of selection held in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 1994 (Annexure-2).
2. Heard Sri V.B. Singh. Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vijai Sinha for the petitioners and Sri U.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Brief facts for adjudication of the writ petition are that the recruitment of constable in Railway Protection Force through Employment Notice No. 1 of 1994 was advertised and large number of candidates participated in the selection process and selection was finalised. However, it was scrapped by the order of Director, Zone Railway Protection Force, New Delhi, on the basis of complaint of malpractices and irregularities involved in the recruitment process, therefore, a fresh Employment Notice No. 1 of 1996 was issued indicating that the candidates, who had applied earlier in response to the Employment Notice No. 1 of 1994 were permitted to be retained the cut off date as 31.8.1994 for considering the age limit between 18 to 25 years so that those candidates participated earlier might not face inconvenience in selection process. It is pertinent to mention here that the selection process in reference to new Employment Notice No. 1 of 1996 was completed and the candidates were selected for giving appointment.
4. 1st and 2nd supplementary affidavit dated 31.10.2000 and 15.1.2002 on behalf of the respondents have been filed. It has been indicated in the counter-affidavit dated 30.8.1999 that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of (a) delay and laches, (b) the freshselection has been completed and selectees/candidates have been appointed and they are working (c) the writ petition cannot be entertained on the point of territorial jurisdiction as the large number of petitioners are resident of Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Rajas than Maharashtra and many of them are residents of districts Lucknow, Faizabad and Pratapgarh, making claims against respondents of New Delhi. In the counter-affidavit to the supplementary-affidavit dated 31.10.2000, it has been contended that similarly writ petition was also filed before this High Court, namely, Writ Petition No. 39772 of 1996. Achchhe Kumar Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., and five other connected writ petitions were heard together and finally decided by a common judgment allowing those writ petitions, where the respondents were directed to declare the result of the selection held for recruitment of Constable in Railway Protection Force in Eastern Railway.
5. Being aggrieved, the Union of India filed special appeals against judgment of all the aforesaid writ petitions which were allowed by a common order dated 24.9.1999 of this Court and the judgment of the learned single Judge had been set aside, the advertisement in question was quashed and the authorities were directed to issue afresh advertisement for selection of constables in Railway Protection Force. The judgment dated 24.9.1999 (endorsed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary-affidavit) is filed in the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred the judgment of Supreme Court dated 10.1.2001 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 430-435 of 2001 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 16826-16831 16826-16831 of 1999) where the cancellation of entire selection in view of order of Director General on the ground of involvement of malpractices in the selection process in respect of constable in Railway Protection Force and further direction to authorities for fresh selection was found justifiable by the Supreme Court passed in the civil appealabove referred against the judgment of Allahabad High Court (DB) passed in special appeal setting aside the order of High Court (single Judge). It has also been observed by the Supreme Court in its above order dated 10.1.2001 that in individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. In the present case in question, the list of selection was cancelled prior to the approval of the Railway Board.
7. It appears that the complaints were made in respect of measurement by saying that the same was not taken properly by the Recruitment Committee, on that aspect it was decided by the respondents to give them another chance for re-measurement by the Recruitment Committee, in the presence of D.I.G., R.P.F., New Delhi, after giving them prior information through news papers and accordingly all such candidates were called and re-measured by the Recruitment Committee. Out of 25 candidates only 15 appeared before the Committee and four candidates qualified in the physical measurement.
8. A complaint dated 2.10.1995 was received through Minister of State for Home Affairs to Director General, Railway Protection Force, wherein it was alleged that the recruitment was being done taking Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 70.000 as bribe. These complaints were referred to Railway Board (vigilance) who, in turn, referred the matter to C.B.I, for making enquiries. In the meantime more complaints from individuals. Member of Parliaments, and some employees association of railways were also received which were also forwarded to C.B.I. The C.B.I, registered a preliminary enquiry No. 1 (A)/96/Lucknow, dated 29.1.1996 and took away all the concerned documents relating to the recruitment. The C.B.I, registered a Regular Case No. 25 (A)/96/Lkw., dated 11.6.1996 against Sri Mewa Lal, the then Chairman of Recruitment Committee, Sri Shekhi Ram AnupRam and Sri S.S. Khan, Members of the Recruitment Committee under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988. Since, it was revealed during the preliminary enquiry that there were evidence of manipulation by way of erosion/alteration/addition in many of the answer-sheets of the candidates recommended for selection.
9. Earlier Sri S.R. Bhardwaj, the then Additional Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern Railway. New Delhi, was deputed to conduct the enquiries, who found that 111 candidates out of 826 candidates earlier found unfit by the Recruitment Committee, were subsequently found fit on rechecking and remeasuring, by same committee. Therefore, the Director General. R.P.F., New Delhi, had scrapped the recruitment proceedings.
10. In the case registered by C.B.I., all the concerned documents relating to the recruitment of Constable (R.P.F.) have been taken away by the C.B.I, and the investigation is still being made by the C.B.I, and the cases against the Members of the Committee are being adjudicated in the Court of Special Judge (Central), Lucknow.
11. When the irregularities are detected and fairness of any selection is doubted on the basis of preliminary enquiry made in respect of malpractices, and foul play involved in any selection process and the authorities have themselves come out suggesting cancellation of selection process as measure of rectification of the wrong and foul play, therefore, in these circumstances this Court should not be enthusiastic to protect such selection, keeping in view the above observations, in present facts and circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief.
12. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.