HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 453 of 2009 (S/S) Sameer Singh …. Petitioner.. Versus Union of India & others … Respondents Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents. 26th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has prayed that the Coast Guard authorities be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Sailor/ “Navik” in Indian Coast Guard. The brief facts of the case are as follows : In response to an advertisement for the post of Sailor/ “Navik” in Indian Coast Guard the petitioner had moved his application. Consequently the petitioner received an invitation from the Coast Guard Authorities to appear for the test/interview and physical examination. The document, admittedly, issued by the Coast Guard authorities pertaining to the results reads as follows : “The results of final selection subject to individual’s position in the merit list and the vacancy position would be intimated by post.” 2 The petitioner appeared for the test/physical test, etc. on 29.9.2008 at Naval Hydrographic Office, Rajpur Road, Dehradun – 1. At this juncture, it must be stated that the postal address of the petitioner is Village - Kori, Post - Pantwari, District - Tehri Garhwal which is in a hill area in the State of Uttarakhand. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner did not receive any intimation or letter or even a telegram from the Coast Guard authorities pertaining to his selection on the post of Sailor/ “Navik”, for which he had appeared. All the petitioner received was a telegram which was booked at New Delhi on 7.2.2009 and was received at Central Telegraph Office, Dehradun on 11.2.2009. The information in the telegram dated 7.2.2009 reads as follows : “REF TO CGHQ APPOINTMENT LETTER RT/0207/01/2009 (91) OF 30 JAN 09 AND TELEGRAM REGARDING YOUR APPOINTMENT IN COAST GUARD SERVICE AS NAVIK GD AAA YOU HAVE FAILED TO REPORT AT 0900 HRS ON 2 FEB 09 AAA DUE TO NON REPORTING ON DUE DATE YOUR APPOINTMENT AS NAVIK GD STANDS CANCELLED AND NO FURTHER CANDIDATE IS BEING ACCEPTED BY TRAINING ESTABLISHMENT.” In short, what the petitioner received by the aforesaid telegram is the information that his appointment for the post of Sailor/ “Navik” has been cancelled as he has not reported for duty. Reference of an earlier telegram, which is undated, and a letter dated 30.1.2009 has been made by the telegram dated 7.2.2009. According to the respondents, in the counter affidavit, the petitioner was given information vide telegram dated 28.1.2009 and the letter dated 30.1.2009. On the other hand, the petitioner states that he had no prior information or intimation by the Coast Guard authorities regarding his appointment and all he received was the telegram dated 7.2.2009 regarding cancellation of his 3 appointment. Promptly, the petitioner filed a representation before the concerned authorities (Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) wherein he stated that he has not received any telegram by the Coast Guard authorities or letter dated 30.1.2009, as is being stated in the telegram dated 7.2.2009 and since he has promptly reported to the Coast Guard authorities as soon as he received the information regarding cancellation of his appointment, he may be allowed to join the service. In reply to the said request the petitioner received a letter dated 6.4.2009 which was sent from the Commandant, Director (MPR & T). Vide the said letter the petitioner was informed that though he was not in the main select list but his name figured in the select waiting list and since the candidate from the main list did not join, he was sent appointment letter on 28/29.1.2009 to report on 2.2.2009 and the authority waited for 5 days and since the petitioner did not report, his appointment was cancelled and information was sent to him vide telegram dated 7.2.2009. The letter further states that the fact of his late joining was intimated to the Coast Guard Training Officer at Chilka. However, since considerable time had elapsed it was not feasible for the Training Establishment to accept the petitioner and, therefore, his appointment has to be treated as cancelled. Aggrieved by the aforesaid attitude of the Coast Guard authority, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court. In the present writ petition the petitioner had also impleaded Senior Superintendent of Postal & Telegraph, Uttarakhand, Senior Post Master and Telegraph, Dehradun and Superintendent of Central Telegraph Office, Dehradun as respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri K.N. Sharma who is the Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Central Telegraph Office, Dehradun which 4 clearly states that they had not received any such telegram dated 28.1.2009 as is alleged by the Coast Guard authorities. The categorical denial to this is in para 2 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows : “2. That as per the record of the Central Telegraph Office, Dehradun no telegraph dated 28.1.2009 was received by Central Telegraph Office, Dehradun. One telegraph booked from New Delhi dated 07.02.2009 was received by the Central Telegraph Office, Dehradun on 11.02.2009, which on 12.02.2009 was sent to Tehri Garhwal for further distribution to the addressee.” The Coast Guard authorities have also filed their counter affidavit which has been filed by the Deputy Inspector General B.K. Patasahani, who is presently posted as Principal Director (Human Resources Development) Coast Guard Headquarters, New Delhi. In para 8 to the counter affidavit it states that they had sent a telegram on 28.1.2009 to the petitioner and vide the said telegram he was directed to join the Coast Guard Headquarters on 2.2.2009. It must be stated that the Postal and Telegraph Department has already denied by their affidavit filed before this Court that they had not received any such telegram. Apart from this, the Coast Guard authorities state in this paragraph of the counter affidavit that although a letter was to be sent to the petitioner which was drafted on 30.1.2009 but “the same however was not dispatched to petitioner as he was supposed to come and report by 02 Feb 09”. In other words, there was a clear admission on the part of the Coast Guard authorities that they have not sent any letter by post to the petitioner on 30.1.2009 although they have referred to this letter in their telegram of cancellation dated 7.2.2009. Moreover, they have also admitted by this admission that they have not sent any letter to the petitioner by post informing him about his appointment. This amounts to a clear 5 admission of having violated the mandatory conditions of the recruitment whereby as per condition no. 5 the results of final selection have to be intimated to the candidates by posts. A reference to this provision has already been referred above. Clearly this is a case of negligence in fact total apathy on the part of the respondents. It was the bounded duty of the Coast Guard authorities to have informed the petitioner about his selection. This they have clearly failed to do so. The petitioner on his part as soon as he came to the knowledge of his selection albeit by the cancellation order, promptly reported before the Coast Guard authorities. But in vain. Apart from the fact that the mandatory condition of informing the selected candidate by post has been violated even otherwise the action and the attitude of the respondents is far from legitimate. The respondents are State Authorities which were assigned the function of making public appointments. This process must be reasonable and should be performed with some responsibility. Sadly this responsibility has not been exercised with due diligence. The authorities have not only violated the law but even when they had a chance to redeem their action i.e. when the petitioner reported for duty, they refused to make amends. The petitioner has unnecessarily suffered due to this attitude of the respondents, which is unbecoming of a public authority. There is another glaring fact which emerges from the present case. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner was sent information vide telegram dated 28.1.2009, he was given only five days’ time to join his duties at Chilka, Orissa. The petitioner was to join duties at Chilka, Orissa on 2.2.2009. The petitioner resides in a remote hill area in the State of Uttarakhand and considering the distance between Chilka, Orissa and Tehri Garhwal in Uttaranchal, it was extremely difficult if not impossible, for a candidate to join duties at Chilka, Orissa within a period of five days. Apart 6 from this, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.C. Pant states that this is also in violation of Central Civil Services (Joining Time) Rules, 1979. The joining time here is “fifteen days” which is mandatory and since this has not been done, there is a clear violation of the Rules as well, which would be applicable in the present case. Even if these Rules are not applicable five days reporting time cannot be called sufficient. This Court, therefore, has no option but to allow the present writ petition. It is being directed that the Director General/Director (MPR & T), Coast Guard Headquarters, New Delhi/ respondent no. 2 shall immediately issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date he is so intimated by the petitioner along with certified copy of this order. This Court has been informed that after appointment a training of 24 weeks’ is mandatory. The respondent no. 2 is further directed either to immediately adjust the petitioner on the ongoing training for Sailors/ “Naviks” or in case it cannot be done then the petitioner shall be sent to the next training which is schedule to take place. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.10.2009 Avneet