SCA/4179/2008 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4179 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5440 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5441 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4180 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4181 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to civil judge ? ========================================================= CHAUDHARY VISHNUKUMAR KHODA- BHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Petitioners MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MS TRUSHA PATEL AGP for Respondent(s) : 4 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 17th December, 2008 SCA/4179/2008 2/8 JUDGMENT COMMON JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) The petitioners in this group of petitions challenge the action of the respondent-Western Railways in cancelling the recruitment of the petitioners as constables in Railway Protection Special Force. On 24th February, 2006, the Western Railways gave a public advertisement inviting applications for recruitment for 202 posts of constables in Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force from amongst the eligible candidates belonging to “Other Backward Classes” and “Ex-servicemen” of the Gujarat State and Union Territories of Daman, Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. The said public notice also provided that the candidates must be of other backward classes specified in Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994 issued by the Government of India in its Ministry of Welfare. In answer to the said public notice, the petitioners applied for recruitment as constables. Pursuant to their applications, the petitioners were called to attend the selection procedure. After undergoing rigorous selection procedure, the petitioners were selected. Under communication dated 10th July, 2006 the petitioners were informed that, “...You have been provisionally selected for the post of constable in SCA/4179/2008 3/8 JUDGMENT RPSF subject to medical fitness in Bee-One category after necessary medical examination by the Railway Doctor. Y ou will have no claim to enlistment on the basis of this offer if you are not found medically fit.” They were instructed to appear before the railway doctor for medical examination. After successfully undergoing medical examination, under communication dated 18th September, 2006, the petitioners were informed that they were selected for appointment as constable in Railway Protection Special Force on conditions, inter alia, that they were required to undergo initial training at R.P.F. Training Centre, N.E. Railways, Gorakhpur (U.P.) for a period of nine months; on successful completion of initial training they would be appointed as constable in the Railway Protection Special Force; the date of appointment would be the date from which they would be posted against the working post; during initial training they would be eligible to draw stipend only. It is the case of the petitioners that they had successfully completed the initial training as required and that they were given regular posting. Thereafter, under communication dated 14th November, 2007 they were called upon to proceed on leave. During the period of leave, by order dated 17th November, 2007, their recruitment as constable in Railway SCA/4179/2008 4/8 JUDGMENT Protection Special Force was cancelled. They were informed that the caste certificate submitted by them were verified by the local authority. The local authority had opined that their community was not as “other backward class” recognized for the purpose of employment under Central Government. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has appeared for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners did not claim that they were “other backward class” candidates in accordance the Government Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994 nor did they produce any certificate to that effect. Nevertheless, the petitioners were called upon to appear for competitive test and on the basis of their performance they were selected. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioners had secured selection by misrepresentation or on the basis of misleading facts. The respondents were aware of the petitioners' status. Nonetheless the respondents did select the petitioners. The respondents are, therefore, now estopped from cancelling the said selection on extraneous ground. He has next contended that even pending these petitions, the Western Railways initiated a fresh recruitment process on 1st June, 2007. He has submitted that the persons selected pursuant to the said recruitment SCA/4179/2008 5/8 JUDGMENT procedure have secured marks lesser than the present petitioners. Hence, the petitioners should be accommodated against the available vacancies advertised on 1st June, 2007. Miss Mandavia has appeared for the Western Railways. She admits that the petitioners did not claim to be “other backward class” candidates according to the Government Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994 nor did they produce such certificate. She has submitted that until after the petitioners successfully underwent the selection procedure and medical examination their applications were not scrutinized. She has, however, disputed that the petitioners have completed the initial training as alleged. She has submitted that the petitioners have not yet completed the initial training nor they were given regular posting. Ms. Mandavia has submitted that on 24th February, 2006, applications were invited from specified class of candidates and it was confined to the candidates from the State of Gujarat and Union Territories specified in the advertisement. It was a special drive for recruitment of constables from amongst those classes of people. The recruitment procedure initiated on 1st June, 2007 was a general recruitment process for eligible candidates from all over the country. The two recruitment processes were not comparable. The petitioners cannot be SCA/4179/2008 6/8 JUDGMENT accommodated against the post advertised on 1st June, 2007. She has also submitted that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to 1st June, 2007 advertisement is complete. The persons selected have already been sent for training. They cannot now be replaced by the petitioners. It does appear that the Western Railways did not verify the credentials of each applicant before they were called for selection procedure. It was only after the applicants were put through the selection procedure and were selected in accordance with their performance, their applications were scrutinized. On scrutiny, it was found that the petitioners did not conform with the requirement of being “Other Backward Class” candidates in accordance with the aforesaid Government Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994. The petitioners were neither backward class candidates nor were they Ex-servicemen as specified in the advertisement dated 24th February, 2006. Evidently, it was a special recruitment from amongst the specified categories. Since the petitioners did not belong to either of the categories specified in the advertisement, they were not eligible for recruitment pursuant to the said advertisement. Once the petitioners were found ineligible for recruitment as constables in Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force, SCA/4179/2008 7/8 JUDGMENT they cannot claim right to appointment pursuant to their selection. As to the recruitment process commenced on 1st June, 2007, it should be noted that none of the petitioners applied for selection pursuant to the public notice dated 1st June, 2007. On 1st June, 2007, the petitioners were aware of cancellation of their selection. If the petitioners chose not to apply in answer to the public notice, they cannot claim a right to selection/appointment against the vacancies advertised in the said public notice. Besides, the two recruitment procedures being totally different incidents, the results were not comparable. The petitioners' claim for accommodation against the posts advertised on 1st June, 2007 is, in our opinion, misconceived and requires to be rejected. We are of the view that the petitioners' challenge to the impugned communication dated 17th November, 2007 is misconceived. It is true that the petitioners were made to go through the selection procedure and also medical examination. However, mere selection did not confer right to appointment upon the petitioners. The advertisement dated 24th February, 2006 was specific about the applicants being “other backward class” candidates eligible for appointment in the service of the Government of India. It is not disputed that the petitioners did SCA/4179/2008 8/8 JUDGMENT not conform with the said requirement. Once petitioners are found ineligible for appointment pursuant to the said advertisement dated 24th February, 2006, the question of their appointment pursuant to the said advertisement and selection procedure does not arise. The fact that they were already sent for training also cannot salvage the situation. No other contention is raised before us. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss all these petitions. Rule nisi issued in each petition is discharged. The parties will bear their own cost. Registry will maintain copy of this order in each petition. {Miss R.M Doshit, J.} {K.M Thaker, J.} Prakash*