Learned advocate for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to page no.123, which is a communication to the petitioner by respondent no.1, indicating therein that on account of complaint received and investigation held, the concerned authorities have decided to cancel the entire proceeding and to conduct the fresh interviews of the same eligible candidates who are interviewed on 07.12.2010 in the interest of natural justice.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that this communication is contrary to the rules especially rule 19(b) reproduced at page no.75 of the petition. Learned advocate has also contended that respondent no.2 who is named as respondent no.2 in this petition, is a petitioner in S.C.A. No.10253 of 2011 and in that petition the present petitioner is shown as respondent no.2. Thus, the subject matter of selection, wherein the petitioner is empaneled as eligible candidate by the respondent no.1 is also under scrutiny of this Court by way of petition. Now, even if it is so, the respondents were not absolved of their obligation to follow the bare modicum of principle of natural justice, which is enshrined by them in rule no.19(b) reproduced at page no.75 of the petition.
The petitioner's advocate has further submitted that no order whatsoever except the order of notice is passed by this Court in S.C.A. No.10253 of 2011, in other words there is no order in favour of respondent no.2 except the issuance of notice and the matter is thereafter adjourned and now it is coming up on 30.01.2012.
In view of this, let there be a notice returnable on 30.01.2012.
Direct service today, is permitted.
Office to place this matter along with S.C.A. No.10253 of 2011 on 30.01.2012.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Top