IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 16532 of 1999(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPAKUMAR.P., S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, THURITHIKKATTU, KAVALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 506. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN, EAST PLAZE, I.G.I, STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110 002. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.16532/99. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE. P2. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.14.11.87. P3. COPY OF THE REPORT IN NATIONAL HERALD DTD.5.4.89. P4. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.11.9.88. P5. COPY OF THE -DO- 31.3.89. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.1.89. P7. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.15.5.89. P8. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.25.10.89. P9. COPY OF THE -DO- P10. COPY OF THE DTD.10.4.90. P11. COPY OF THE -DO- 1.6.92. P12. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.9.9.96. P13. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.5.6.97. P14. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.7.6.96. P15. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.5.7.97. P16. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BY M.O.(H), ALAPPUZHA DTD.5.11.97. P17. COPY OF THE -DO- 27.3.95. P18. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.3.11.97. P19. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.3.11.97. P20. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.10.10.97. P21. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.27.8.97. P22. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.2.6.97. P23. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.26.12.96 IN TIMES OF INDIA, MUMBAI. P24. COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DTD.14.10.97. P25. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.7.99. P26. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.5978/88 DTD.3.9.92. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.16532 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be fully qualified to be appointed as a Youth Co-ordinator pursuant to the notification inviting applications for the said post by Ext.P23 for appointment as Youth Co-ordiantors in the 2nd respondent-Sangathan. The petitioner alleges that pursuant to Ext.P24 communication directing the petitioner to appear for a test and interview, the petitioner appeared for the test and interview and he claims to have been ranked as No.1 in the rank list. The petitioner's grievance in this original petition is that despite the same, no rank list has been published and no appointment has been made pursuant to the selection initiated by Ext.P23. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) call for the records leading to the non-publication of result of Youth Co-ordinators as per the Notification Exhibit P23, ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction to the second respondent to publish the select list of Youth Co-ordinators as per Exhibit P23 Notification and to issue appointment order to the petitioner if he is found selected within a reasonable time:” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, which is not on record. An office copy of the same is available in the file probably the office copy of the Assistant Solicitor General, which may have been handed over to the Court, while the original petition came up for hearing some time earlier. In the same, nothing definite is stated as to any of the allegations of the petitioner. It is not clear as to whether the recruitment process has been cancelled or not. All what they say is as follows: “5. In the interest of justice, it is relevant to mention here that two of the applicants had filed a writ petition No.5298 of 1998 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Yogendra Singh Vs. Union of India and Others. The learned Single Judge was pleased to issue a direction to the effect that the authorities shall declare the results of the examination held on 01.11.997 [sic] and that if the petitioners are found successful, they shall be appointed in the prescribed vacancy. 6. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was taken in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench. While deciding the appeal, the Hon'ble Bench held that if there are circumstances and materials on record putting a question mark on the fairness of the selection procedure, it is permissible for the authorities to cancel the selection process. It was also quoted that if there is no valid sanction for the post, even if the selection is made and name of the candidates appear in the merit list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right of an appointment as a Government Servant even if vacancy exists. The Hon'ble Bench further observed that the decision for not filling up of the vacancies has to be taken as bonafide for appropriate reasons. On the basis of the aforesaid observation the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 3rd of March 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge and the entire matter was remanded back to the Single Judge for a fresh consideration and decision thereon, after taking into account all the relevant factors as to whether the decision of the Government in not filling up of the posts is valid and as to whether the cancellation of the process is proper or not. It is submitted that the matter is still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Delhi. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the said petition was filed prior to this petition and the same is still pending before the Hon'ble Single Judge at Delhi High Court for final decision. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, it is submitted that the petitioner is not at all entitled to any of the relief as sought for in the writ petition and it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the aforesaid contentions of the respondent and dismissed the writ petition with costs. In view of the above averments, when this original petition came up for hearing on 5.11.2008, I passed the following order and posted the original petition for further hearing to this week: “The 1st respondent is stated to have filed a counter affidavit. The same is not on record, a copy of which is seen in the file, which apparently is the office copy of the advocate, which must have been handed over to the Court when the original petition came up earlier for hearing. In that counter affidavit it is stated that the very same selection was the subject matter of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, viz. W.P.No.5298/1998, in which there was initially a judgment by a Single Judge granting reliefs to the petitioners in that writ petition, which was set aside by the Division Bench, directing the Single Judge to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the directions in the judgment of the Division Bench. The 1st respondent shall file a fresh counter affidavit in which the present position of the writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court shall also be stated. Respondents 1 and 2 shall also produce files relating to the selection.” 3. When the matter taken up for hearing today, the Assistant Solicitor General was not present. Nor has a counter affidavit been filed as directed in the order datad 5.11.2008. As such, there is nothing on record to show that the second respondent has taken a final decision to cancel the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P23. If they have not taken a decision to cancel the same, then it is only in the fitness of things that they conclude the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P23 to its logical conclusion. In the above circumstances, if the 2nd respondent has not taken any decision to cancel the selection made pursuant to Ext.P23 notification, the rank list for selection shall be finalised and published, and persons appointed from the rank list in accordance with law rank and rules regarding reservation and communal rotation. The above exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No. 16532 of 1999-T =============== J U D G M E N T 24th November, 2008 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.16532 of 1999-R ================== Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The 1st respondent is stated to have filed a counter affidavit. The same is not on record, a copy of which is seen in the file, which apparently is the office copy of the advocate, which must have been handed over to the Court when the original petition came up earlier for hearing. In that counter affidavit it is stated that the very same selection was the subject matter of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, viz. W.P.No.5298/1998, in which there was initially a judgment by a Single Judge granting reliefs to the petitioners in that writ petition, which was set aside by the Division Bench, directing the Single Judge to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the directions in the judgment of the Division Bench. The 1st respondent shall file a fresh counter affidavit in which the present position of the writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court shall also be stated. Respondents 1 and 2 shall also produce files relating to the selection. Post in the week commencing from 24.11.2008 (Weekly list) sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.16532 of 1999-R =============== O R D E R 5th November, 2008