THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.17750, 18340 and 17834 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Dredging Corporation of India Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’), respondent No.1 herein, issued an advertisement, dated 27.02.2009, inviting applications for the post of Trainee Electrical Officers. The qualifications and other relevant criteria were stipulated. The petitioners herein and several others applied. After conducting relevant test and interviews for the post of Trainee Electrical Officers, orders of offer of appointment were issued to the petitioners on 06.07.2009 and the forms of bank guarantee, service bond, surety bond etc., were furnished to them for submission after execution. Accordingly, the petitioners executed relevant documents within the stipulated time. One month thereafter, the General Manager of the Corporation addressed letters, dated 05.08.2009, informing the petitioners that due to various administrative reasons, the Corporation has decided to cancel the orders of offer of appointment and returned the service bond, surety bond, etc. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said communication. They contend that they were selected on being found suitable in the test and the interview conducted for that purpose and the offers of appointment, made by the respondents were accepted by them. They plead that it is not a case where the respondents have given up the entire selection and appointment process, but have selectively appointed 15 candidates from the same batch. They complain that no specific reasons are mentioned, except stating that there existed various administrative reasons. On behalf of the respondents, the General Manager of the Corporation filed counter-affidavit. The fact that an advertisement was issued and the petitioners were selected for the said posts, is not denied. It is stated that after the selection process was completed, the Corporation has reviewed the matter and examined whether there is necessity to appoint 31 Officers in the light of the global meltdown of economy, recession in the entire shipping industry, present and future high financial commitments for undertaking dry-dock, etc., and it was decided to appoint only first 15 candidates. It is also pleaded that the petitioners do not have any right to claim appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, advanced arguments, on the lines indicated above. The Corporation intended to appoint as many as 31 Trainee Electrical Officers and accordingly, advertisement was issued. Quite large number of qualified candidates applied and out of them, 217 candidates were called for the interview based on their performance in the written test. Out of them, 31 candidates, including the petitioners were selected. Orders of offer of appointment were issued to the petitioners requiring them to execute certain documents and the formalities were completed by the petitioners. The impugned communication reads as under: “Please refer to our Offer of Appointment letter cited on the above subject. Due to various administrative reasons, we regret to inform you that the Officer of Appointment letter issued to you for the post of trainee Electrical Officer, is hereby cancelled. In view of the above, the Service-Surety Bonds submitted by you are returned herewith. We once again regret the inconvenience caused to you.” This gives an impression as though the entire process of selection of appointment of candidates was given up or abandoned, due to various administrative reasons. The petitioners submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In a reply given on 22.03.2010, the General Manager informed the petitioners that 15 candidates out of 31 were issued orders of appointment and they are undergoing training. The reasons for not appointing the remaining 16 candidates are mentioned as under: “However, due to various administrative reasons, the Offers of Appointment issued to 16 candidates were cancelled, vide our letter, dated 05.08.2009. A specimen copy of the letter is enclosed.” In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have furnished the following reasons for not appointing the petitioners: “I submit that the respondent Corporation reviewed the necessity to appoint 31 Trainee Electrical Officers duly taking into account certain points like “global meltdown of economy, recession in the entire shipping industry, present and future high financial commitments of the respondent Corporation for undertaking dry-dock repairs of the existing fleet and acquisition of new dredgers” etc decided to observe strict cost cutting methods in all possible areas, so as to ensure the very sustenance of the company and the existing employees and it was therefore decided to appoint only first 15 candidates in the order of merit for the present. Under those circumstances, the order of appointment order issued to the petitioner and 15 others had to be cancelled under the impugned proceedings and the other allegations and contentions of the petitioner are untenable and merits no consideration.” On the face of it, the action of the respondents in cancelling the order of offer of appointment issued to the petitioners is untenable. The order of cancellation as well as the information furnished in response to the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are vague, as to the reasons for not appointing the remaining 16 candidates from the list of 31. In the counter-affidavit, an attempt is made to justify the discrimination. The so-called global meltdown of economy, recession in the entire shipping industry, present and future high financial commitments for undertaking dry- dock, etc., are pressed into service. It is not as if the advertisement was issued several years ago and by the time the selection process took place, substantial changes have taken place. The advertisement was issued in February, 2009 and hardly within few months, the selection process was complete. The orders of offer of appointment were issued on 06.07.2009. Even by that time, the respondents did not find any substantial change of circumstances. Just within one month, the orders of offer of appointment were cancelled. Nothing phenomenal or substantial has taken place between the date of orders of offer of appointment and the date of cancellation thereof. Even the date on which the Corporation has reviewed the situation is not mentioned. The basis on which, half of the selected candidates were appointed and the remaining half were refused such a facility, is not forthcoming. The whole exercise is arbitrary, unreasonable discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Being an agency owned by the Government of India, the Corporation was not supposed to act in such arbitrary and illegal manner. Though an offer does not create any right in the individual, to whom it is made, the vice of discrimination from which the action of the respondents, enables this Court to require them to be fair to everyone, who was selected. Whatever may be the freedom of a private individual, in matters of this nature, the State and its instrumentalities cannot assume to themselves, the power to be selective or choosy. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the individual communications, dated 05.08.2009, are set aside. Since the petitioners have already complied with the formalities of submission of bonds etc., the respondents are directed to extend the same treatment to the petitioners as was done to 15 of 31 selected candidates without any further loss of time. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt. 07.10.2010. Note: LR copy to be marked. Kdl