Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.
We have heard Shri Bhoopendra Nath Singh assisted by Shri Sunil for the petitioners. Shri N.P. Shukla appears for the respondents.
Brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition challenging the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.8.2000 in Original Application No. 917 of 1998, (Ram Janam Verma vs. Union of India and others), and other connected OAs, dismissing the applications with directions to conclude the Court of Enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law, are as follows.
The Army Headquarters released 68 vacancies of Mazdoors; 8 vacancies of Firemen, and 2 vacancies of Messengers for appointment vide orders dated 30.8.1996, 20.9.1996 and 10.10.1996 respectively in Central Ordnance Depot, G.T. Road, Kanpur. The Commandant, COD Kanpur, sent requisition to the employment exchange on 14.1.1997 for sponsoring names of eligible candidates. The Employment Exchange Officers, Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat forwarded names of 845 candidates for the post of Mazdoors; 46 names for the post of Firemen; and 53 names for the post of Messengers. The period fixed upto 30.8.1997 by the Army Headquarters in its letter dated 13.8.1997 to finalise the recruitment, was extended to 29.11.1997. A board of two officers was constituted for selection for which the dates of post and interviews were fixed on 25/26.11.1997. A board of officers presided over by Maj. R.P.S. Rai conducted the selection of 68 Mazdoors on 25.11.1997. The second board presided over by Maj. R. Nagpaul conducted the selection of 8 Firemen and 02 Messengers on 26.11.1997.
The selection proceedings of the boards were approved on 20.12.1997, and the result was declared on the same day. The Army Headquarters vide letter dated 21.5.1998 gave clearance to issue appointment letters. The 27 appointment letters were processed and signed by the Commandant on 26.5.1998, and were despatched by the registered post on the same day. On the next day on 27.5.1998 some of the successful candidates joined.
In the meantime some complaints were received with regard to the fairness of selection proceedings. The Army Headquarters, vide telex message dated 27.5.1998, directed to keep the appointments in abeyance, until further orders, followed by a letter dated 27.5.1998. Aggrieved, the persons, included in the select list, filed OAs in Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order dated 27.5.1998 and to permit them to join duties and to pay their salaries. One of the OA was filed by the Labour Union and some selected candidates. A Writ Petition No. 2121 of 1998 was filed challenging the selections. The writ petition was dismissed on 20.1.1998.
The respondents defended the orders putting the selection in the abeyance on the grounds that a court of enquiry was directed to look into the selections. The opinion of the enquiry officer was annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit. It was submitted that mere selection did not create any right in favour of the selected candidates. The enquiry was still pending and that during the pendency of the enquiry the appointments would have caused complications. In order to maintain uniformity, all the candidates were treated equally. The petitioners were not entitled any relief, until the court of enquiry was completed.
The Tribunal found that the court of enquiry into the complaints against the selections was being conducted by Major General Rajan Aneyas as Presiding Officer; Brig. A.K. Pandey and Brig. G. Dawar as members. They completed the investigation and on their report the decision was taken by the competent authority. The Tribunal held that the allegations against the selection proceedings by the board of officers, was subject matter of enquiry by high officers. A court of enquiry could be ordered subsequently for indepth investigation of the allegations. The conclusion of the enquiry, which was of the administrative nature, could not restrict the discretion of the higher authorities to order a full-fledged court of enquiry under Army Act and Rules. So far as the selected candidates, who had joined on different dates between 27.5.1998 to 29.5.1998, it was found that total 27 appointment letters were issued, out of which five persons had reported for joining. Relying upon State of Bihar and others vs. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others, 1994 LAB.I.C. 676; N. Mohanan vs. State of Kerala and others AIR 1997 SC 1896; Jai Singh Dalal and others vs. State of Haryana and others 1993 (1) SLR 422 as well as Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others vs. Sushants Kumar Dinga and others J.T. 1996 (6) 515, the Tribunal held that selected candidates do not get indefeasible right or vested right merely by selection and appointment. If the authority, which has the power to specify the method of recruitment, is satisfied that the procedure for selection has not been followed and selections were not fair, it can intervene and set the things right.
After examining the findings of the court of enquiry for a limited purpose as to whether the selection should be kept in abeyance, the Tribunal found that the order was reasonable and justified. The Tribunal thus directed to conclude the court to enquiry and pass orders in accordance with the law expeditiously and dismissed all the OAs.
On 3.4.2002 this Court had directed the respondents to inform the Court whether the court of enquiry was concluded. Shri P.N. Shukla sought several adjournments. On 12.12.2006, after a period of four years, the Court observed that on the next day the illness slip will not be accepted. The case was again adjourned on several dates and that on 11.1.2011 the counsel for respondents was reminded that he has not yet informed the court whether the court of enquiry has been concluded and any report was submitted.
There is an affidavit of Cap. R.P.S. Tulsi dated 20.3.2005 filed on 28.4.2005, by the respondents stating in paragraph-3 that no one of the military officers, who were associated with the recruitment process, has been exonerated from the charges levelled against them. The civilian officers, who were associated with the recruitment process, were awarded punishment of severe displeasure. Cap. Neeti Prakashof COD Kanpur and Cap. (Now Maj) S. Gupta have received punishment. The telex message dated 28.7.1999 of Headquarters, Central Command is enclosed with the affidavit.
Shri N.P. Shukla has filed another affidavit of Shri R. Pandit dated 10.2.2011. In this affidavit, it is stated that in pursuance to the order of the Court Lt. Col. (Administrative Officer), had written letters to find out the status of the enquiry. These letters have been annexed to the affidavit. In the letter of Shri S.S. Dhalwal, Joint Director OS(Pers) for DG OS, Army Headquarters dated 18.8.2006 sent to the Commandant, COD Kanpur, it is reported as follows:-
"A/24303/Ram Janam Verma/171/OS-8c(ii) 18 Aug 2006 Commandant, COD Kanpur W.P. NO. 51882/2000 FILED BY RAM JANAM VERMA AND OTHERS VERSUS UOI & OTHERS
1. Ref your letter No. C/44249/RJV/HC/Legal/Adm dated 24/27 Jul 2006.
2. The facts of the case as intimated by you are already on record and the rationale behind your contention that Army HQ is the competent authority to look into the issue in the context of changed scenario, is not under stood particularly when verdict of the CAT has been challenged in the subject writ petition by the petitioners.
3. It is reiterated that the subject case was referred to MOD fully explaining each and every aspect including the humanitarian ground but it has been categorically ruled by the Ministry that outcome of W.P. 51882/2000 may be awaited.
4. The position enumerated in Para 7 of your letter under reference may be intimated the Hon'ble Court if not already done. It may be clearly understood that even if the decision of court goes in favour of the petitioners, the Department will not be able to appoint them due to downsizing and modernization resulting in cut in manpower.
5. Further action may be taken accordingly.
Sd/-
(SS Dhalwal) Jt. Dir OS (Pers) for DG OS"
It is submitted on behalf of the respondents, that the Tribunal was satisfied with the report of the court of enquiry that there were serious irregularities on account of which a direction was given that the appointments may not be made out of the selections. The selected persons did not get any right of appointment. The department has now been downsized and modernized resulting in cut in man power and thus it is not possible for the respondents to give appointments to the persons of the select list.
The Tribunal examined the enquiry report and found that there were complaints of serious irregularities in the selections. The officers in the Army had enquired into the matter and prima facie found that the persons selected should not be given appointments. The court of enquiry was to be held against the officers responsible for causing irregularity. Some of the officers were given entries of severe displeasure.
We are of the opinion, that even if the court of enquiry set up to consider the question of disciplinary enquiry against the members of the selection board has not been concluded, the petitioners do not get any right to be appointed. The Committee consisting of a Major General and two Brigadiers had completed the investigation and were of the view that the selection proceedings suffered from gross irregularities. These allegations and the opinion of the senior officers in the Army was sufficient to withhold appointments.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.26.5.2011 RKP/