THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION NO.12223 OF 1999 DATED 20TH OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN M.Lakshminarayana and others …Appellants & Petitioners And Union of India, Rep. by its Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION NO.12223 OF 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) Writ Appeal No.1673 of 2005 is directed against the order dated 21.06.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.26341 of 1998 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed. Writ Petition No.12223 of 1999 is filed seeking a declaration that the selections made by the respondents therein pursuant to Notification No.2 of 1996 dated 20.11.1996 are illegal and arbitrary and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to commence the selection process afresh on zonal basis. The case of the appellants in W.A.No.1673 of 2005 is that they had applied pursuant to Notification No.1 of 1994 dated 29.04.1994 but the said notification was cancelled and Notification No.2 of 1996 was issued calling for applications for the posts of Constables in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). Thereafter, examinations were conducted in different centres and each centre was taken as a Unit for recruitment. The grievance of the appellants was that the results of various centres ought to have been clubbed together and a list of meritorious candidates should have been prepared and basing on that combined merit list appointments ought to have been made instead of making centre-wise selections and recruitments. On the other hand, the case of the official respondents is that although examination papers were different from centre to centre, same pattern of examination was conducted in all the centres. Further, in Notification No.2 of 1996 dated 20.11.1996 it was clearly mentioned as to the centre-wise vacancies duly indicating break-up of vacancies meant for each group and as to the centre-wise selections to be made. It was thus the case of the official respondents that selection process made on that basis cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Heard Sri J.M.Nadiu, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1673 of 2005 and the writ petitioners in W.P.No.12223 of 1999; and Sri Gowrishankar Sanghi, learned standing counsel for the official respondents. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel, submitted that the post of Constable in the RPF is a Zonal post and therefore the selections and appointments made centre-wise were illegal as they ought to have been made Zonal-wise. He further submitted that as the respondents adopted different yardsticks in different examination centres, the same was illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention, he sought to place reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in RADHEY SHYAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA[1]. He contended that the learned single Judge failed to consider these aspects in the right perspective and erroneously dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the official respondents submitted that in Notification No.2 of 1996 dated 20.11.1996 it was clearly indicated the vacancy position in each centre including the vacancies earmarked for each group and the centre-wise selections to be made. He further submitted that the copy of Notification No.2 of 1996 dated 20.11.1996 filed along with the writ petition was an incorrect copy. He drew our attention to the relevant portion of the correct Notification No.2 of 1996 as to the centre-wise selections to be made. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge as well as the material placed on record. In the impugned order, the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed thus: “In the instant case, the examinations were conducted separately though the pattern of examination was one and nothing prevented the petitioners from applying in the other centers and appear for the examination and getting themselves selected and appointed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the selections and appointments made by the respondents i.e., center- wise and category-wise for each center cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. May be some candidates in other centers who got lesser marks than the petitioners were also selected as per the merit list prepared in that particular center. That itself does not mean that there was any injustice suffered by the petitioners much less any substantial injustice to call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.” As can be seen from the material placed on record, it is not the case of the appellants that they were not permitted to appear in different centres where examinations were conducted or that they were qualified in a particular centre but they were not selected on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate in another centre. The complaint of the appellants is that when 198 vacancies were notified, the respondents ought to have conducted a common examination and basing on that single merit list, zonal-wise selections should have been made. In this regard, it is necessary to have a look at the impugned notification filed by the learned standing counsel for the official respondents, relevant portion of which reads as under: “Candidates whose application forms are found in order will be called to the centre chosen by them and they will be considered basing on the performance of the particular centre.” It is therefore clear that the official respondents had made it clear in the notification itself as to conducting examinations and making selections and appointments centre-wise. The contention of the appellants that common examination should have been conducted and zonal-wise selections and appointments should have been made therefore cannot be countenanced. Further, the respondents had taken a policy decision at National Level (Railway Board) to the effect that equitable representation should be given to all regions to eliminate imbalances in the RPF so that its national character is truly represented. To achieve this objective, centre-wise selections and appointments were made but the process of such selections and appointments remained the same in all the centres. That being so, the decision of the Supreme Court in RADHEY SHYAM SINGH has no application to the facts of the present case, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. We accordingly confirm the said order. The writ appeal is consequently liable to be dismissed. In so far as W.P.No.12223 of 1999 is concerned, the challenge made therein is as to the selections being made centre-wise as per Notification No.2 of 1996 dated 20.11.1996 instead of zonal-wise. This is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.1673 of 2005. The writ petitioners also seek a consequential direction to the official respondents to re-conduct the examination and the selection process. As the case of the writ petitioners in W.P.No.12223 of 1999 is similar to the case of the appellants in W.A.No.1673 of 2005, the discussion hereinabove squarely covers the issue raised in W.P.No.12223 of 1999 also. Following the same the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed and no direction can be issued to the official respondents to commence the examination and selection process afresh pursuant to Notification No.2 of 1996 dated 20.11.1996. In the result, Writ Appeal No.1673 of 2005 fails and is dismissed. Following the order passed in the said writ appeal, Writ Petition No.12223 of 1999 is also dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 20TH OCTOBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] AIR 1997 SC 1610