IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4502 of 2011 Surender Singh Taxak Vs. Food Corporation of India New Delhi & another Present: Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is working as Assistant General Manager in Food Corporation of India. FCI has issued advertisement for filling up post of Deputy General Manager by way of direct recruitment. There is condition in the application form for in service candidates to obtain a certificate from the employer that there is no vigilance case pending against the applicant, besides the grant of No Objection Certificate. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the said condition imposed in application form (Annexure P-2).The counsel contends that imposing of this condition is bad and impermissible. The petitioner has applied for the post through proper channel in response to the advertisement issued on 8.1.2011. The application form of the petitioner, complete in all respects, along with the requisite fee was duly forwarded with a request to the Executive Director to sign the No Objection Certificate. The respondents have taken decision not to forward the application of the petitioner because he is facing a vigilance enquiry. The petitioner was accordingly informed that his application has been rejected for want of clearance by the respondents as disciplinary enquiry is pending against him. As per the petitioner, this condition was not stipulated in the advertisement and it is mentioned for the first time in the application form itself. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn this action to impose this condition in the application form. Civil Writ Petition No.4502 of 2011 :2: Counsel for the petitioner submits that this condition would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the petitioner is being denied equal opportunity of consideration for appointment. It is not understood as to how this requirement of obtaining no objection or intimation regarding pending vigilance enquiry would be unfair and unreasonable in any manner. The petitioner is in the service of FCI and is facing vigilance enquiry. He even cannot be held eligible for promotion due to pendency of enquiry. Would it then be fair to allow him to seek direct appointment on a higher post while his conduct is under a clout. Purity of administration would require that a person facing vigilance enquiry is not permitted to advance in service till he clears his name. It is an accepted norm for serving employees to seek another appointment after obtaining no objection from the department where they are serving. Once a person is facing a disciplinary enquiry while serving in the same department, he certainly cannot seek to be equated with other person applying for the post. It is well understood that in all organisations inservice candidates have to submit their application forms through proper channel. Getting no objection in such like cases is meant for ensuring that a person making application is free from any infirmity, which may affect his right to seek appointment. Certainly, a person may not be able to seek consideration for appointment, if he is involved in a serious case of misconduct. The employer is entitled to know the credential of the applicants. Even after selection, a person is offered appointment after character verification. Pendency of any proceedings in the same department would be a valid consideration for appointment. I do not find any infirmity in the condition imposed, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE