# Ramesh Chandra Singh and others v. Amar Nath Singh and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-05-24
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 47 of 1998
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-singh-and-others-v-amar-nath-singh-and-others-39202
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri B. D. Madhyan
Sri Khurshed Alam
Sri Satish Mandhyan
Sri Vijai Sinha
Sri M.I. Jafri
Sri Lalji Sinha

Constitution of India, Article 226- Writ
petition challenging order of cancellation
of selection process of candidate in
R.P.F.- selected candidate who have
already joined not impleaded - No-
effective order can not be passed.
Held - Para 27

The contention of Sri Anil Bhushan that
the candidates who have been selected
pursuant to the advertisement no. 1 of
1996 ought to have been impleaded and
were necessary parties in the writ
petition, in absence of which, no relief
could have been granted also cannot be
said to be without any merit. In the
present
case
the
respondent
writ
petitioners had challenged the issuance
2 All] Ramesh Chandra Singh and others Vs. Amar Nath Singh and others
429
of fresh advertisement in pursuance of
which selection had already taken place
and orders for training had also been
issued and, thus the selected candidate
ought to have been made parties as they
were proper and necessary parties, in
the absence of which the petition itself
was not maintainable. The principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ram Janam Singh is fully
applicable in the present case.
J.T. 2002 (2) SC 191, AIR 1994 SC 1722, JT
1993 (2) 688
JT 1991 (2) SC- 296, JT 2000 (9) SC-168, AIR
1978 (SC) 851, AIR 1991 SC 1612

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
428
taken by respondents debarring the
petitioner to appear to B. Tech. Final Year
Examination of the year 2002 due to
shortage of his combined attendance is
within the scope of authority conferred
upon them under statutory Ordinance of
examinations in various disciplines of
learning in the University and it is also
most reasonable for the reasons discussed
hereinabove.
I
decline
to
issue
a
prerogative writ making the decision
taken by respondents debarring the
petitioner to appear in the B. Tech. Final
Year . Examination, 2002 due to shortage
of his combined attendance to be
ineffective.

10. It is frankly conceded by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has not made any allegation of
malafide against respondents no. 2 and 3.
In absence of any allegation of malafide
against respondents no. 2 and 3, the
argument raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner that respondents no. 2 and 3
have practiced discrimination with the
petitioner does not arise. It is well to
remember that there is presumption that
an act done by an authority is bona fide
unless contrary is proved. In the present
case the petitioner fails to prove contrary.

11. For the reasons what have been
discussed hereinabove, no ground is made
out for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution.

Consequently,
the
instant
writ
petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD MAY 24, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 47 of 1998

Ramesh Chandra Singh and others

...Appellant
Versus
Sri Amar Nath Singh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Tarun Verma
Sri Anil Bhusan
Sri R.C. Srivastava
Sri Manoj Srivastava
Sri M.M.Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B. D. Madhyan
Sri Khurshed Alam
Sri Satish Mandhyan
Sri Vijai Sinha
Sri M.I. Jafri
Sri Lalji Sinha

Constitution of India, Article 226- Writ
petition challenging order of cancellation
of selection process of candidate in
R.P.F.- selected candidate who have
already joined not impleaded - No-
effective order can not be passed.
Held - Para 27

The contention of Sri Anil Bhushan that
the candidates who have been selected
pursuant to the advertisement no. 1 of
1996 ought to have been impleaded and
were necessary parties in the writ
petition, in absence of which, no relief
could have been granted also cannot be
said to be without any merit. In the
present
case
the
respondent
writ
petitioners had challenged the issuance
2 All] Ramesh Chandra Singh and others Vs. Amar Nath Singh and others
429
of fresh advertisement in pursuance of
which selection had already taken place
and orders for training had also been
issued and, thus the selected candidate
ought to have been made parties as they
were proper and necessary parties, in
the absence of which the petition itself
was not maintainable. The principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ram Janam Singh is fully
applicable in the present case.
J.T. 2002 (2) SC 191, AIR 1994 SC 1722, JT
1993 (2) 688
JT 1991 (2) SC- 296, JT 2000 (9) SC-168, AIR
1978 (SC) 851, AIR 1991 SC 1612

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agarwal, J.)

1. The Special Appeal No. 47 of
1998 has been filed by Ramesh Chandra
Singh and 20 others against the common
judgment and order dated 19.12.1997
passed by the learned Single Judge in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38406 of
1996, Amar Nath Singh Vs. Union of
India and 4 others connected with Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 36605 of 1997,
Jagmohan and 6 others Vs. Union of India
and 4 others, after obtaining leave to
appeal.

2. The Union of India and 3 others
who were the respondents in the aforesaid
two writ petitions which have been
decided by the learned Single Judge vide
common judgment and order dated
19.12.1987, have filed two separate
Special Appeals being Special Appeals
No. 80 and 81 of 1998. Since all these
three Special Appeals arise out of a
common
judgment
dated
19.12.1997,hence they are being heard
and decided together.

3. The facts giving rise to the
present case, in brief are that North
Eastern
Railway
published
an
employment notice no. 2 of 1994 on
2.6.1995 for filling up 485 vacancies of
constables in Railway Protection Force
(hereinafter referred to as R.P.F.) in the
pay scale of Rs.825-1200. In all 1,10,669
candidates applied for the said post, out of
which only 90,000 candidates forms were
found in order. After scrutiny of the form,
the Railway authorities sent call letters to
78,000 candidates. In the test held
between 6.5.1995 to 6.8.1995, only
24,563 candidates appeared. In the 3
member
recruitment
committee,
constituted by the Railway Board the
following persons were nominated:

(1) Sri Mewa Lal, the then Divisional
Security
Commissioner/RPF,
Northern
Railway,
Lucknow
(Chairman).
(2) Sri Sekey Ram, Retired Commandant,
and
(3) Sri S.A. Hussain, Divisional Security
Commissioner/RPF,
Crime
Wing,
Western Railway, Bombay.
4.

The
recruitment
committee
submitted the result to the Director
General,
RPF,
Railway
Board
on
5.1.1996. The papers connected with the
result of the recruitment were sent for
scrutiny
to
the
Chief
Security
Commissioner, NER, Gorakhpur, who in
turn appointed a three member- scrutiny
committee. The scrutiny committee found
that
there
were
certain
serious
irregularities,
infirmities
and
shortcomings in the recruitment which
were categorized in the following heads:

(i) Excess recruitment to the extent of
99 candidates has been empanelled as
against the notified vacancies.

(ii) Certain S.C. candidates who had
secured more marks were not brought on
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
430
merit list whereas other S.C. candidates
who had secured less mark have been
brought on panel.

(iii) Violation of extant rules/circulars in
formation of the panel.

(iv) Procedure
followed
by
the
Recruitment Committee has not been
elaborated in that at no point of time the
original
application
forms
were
scrutinized/compared and as such the
possibility of impersonation by affixing
different photographs in the call letter at
various stages cannot be ruled out.

5. The above mentioned irregularities
were brought to the notice of the
chairman of the recruitment committee,
and he was asked to remove and rectify
the irregularities and mistakes in the
result.
The
chairman,
recruitment
committee refused to rectify and correct
the mistake/irregularities. The Director
General, Railway Protection Force, taking
into
consideration
the
various
irregularities and shortcomings and also
on the ground that there was serious
complaint of corruption, cancelled the
whole process of recruitment as well as
the result. Consequently, a news item was
published on 4.9.1996 to the effect that
the recruitment held pursuant to the
employment notice no. 2 of 1994 had
been cancelled and rescinded. Another
employment notice no. 1 of 1996 was
issued and published in local daily on
1.11.1996
inviting
applications
for
recruitment of 800 posts of constables in
Railway Protection Force limiting the
applicants from the provinces of Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar.

6. The respondent - writ petitioners
challenged the action of the Railway
authorities in cancelling the earlier
selection and recruitment and issuing
fresh advertisement as wholly illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the principle of
natural justice as also violative of the
provisions
of
fundamental
rights
guaranteed to them under Article 16 (1) of
the Constitution of India. Apart from legal
ground., the respondent- writ petitioners
had also challenged the cancellation of the
recruitment on the ground of political
pressure being exerted by the Ministry of
Railway on account of change in
Ministry.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by
Sri R.K. Misra, the then Security
Commissioner, North Eastern Railway,
Varanasi, it has been stated that the
recruitment was rightly cancelled in view
of serious and glaring irregularities,
infirmities and shortcoming which the
Chairman, recruitment committee refused
to remove as also on the complaint of
corruption.

8. A plea was taken that the
respondent- writ petitioners had no right
to challenge the order of cancellation of
the
recruitment
process
which
was
necessitated on account of the above
shortcomings, particularly when it has
been notified that all the applicants who
participated in the previous recruitment
may also appear in the subsequent
recruitment test and they have no legal
right for appointment on the posts of
Constable RPF even though they have
been successful in the test or their names
find place in the select list.

9. The Chairman of the recruitment
committee has also filed counter affidavit
denying the allegation of corruption or
irregularities, infirmities pointed out by
2 All] Ramesh Chandra Singh and others Vs. Amar Nath Singh and others
431
the Scrutiny Committee. In effect, he
supported the case of the writ petitioners.

10. The learned Single Judge after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties
came to the conclusion that the action of
the Railway authorities in cancelling the
recruitment was unreasonable and in
irrational manner, having done in light
vein without realizing the implications
and quashed, the order of scrapping of the
recruitment process.

11. While allowing both the writ
petitions, the learned Single Judge also
quashed the employment notice no. 1 of
1996
and
directed
the
respondents
Railway authorities to declare the result of
the recruitment made pursuant to the
notice/notification no. 2 of 1994.

12. Feeling aggrieved by the
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge, the Railway authorities have
preferred Special Appeals No. 80 and 81
of 1998 whereas the Special Appeal No.
47 of 1998 has been filed by some of the
candidates
who
had
been
selected
pursuant to the recruitment notice no. 1 of
1996 and their appointment letters have
been issued and orders for joining the
training have been issued.

13. We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma,
Sri Tarun Verma, and Sri Anil Bhushan
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
B.D. Madhyan learned counsel for the
respondent - writ petitioners.

14. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the respondent-
writ petitioners' name was only included
in the select list and no appointment letter
had been issued to them and, therefore, in
the view of the decision of Hon. Supreme
Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs.
Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC
1612, the respondent- writ petitioners did
not get an indefeasible right to be
appointed. It was also submitted that the
decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 39772 of 1996 decided on
8.4.1997 and Ramdas Rai vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in 1995 (2)
UPLBEC 985 which have been relied
upon by the learned Single Judge do not
lay down the correct law and in fact the
decision in the case of Sri Niwas Singh
and others vs. Union of India and others
had been reversed in Special Appeal by
the Division Bench, which has been
reported in 1999 (3) UPLBEC 2368 and
against which Special Leave Petition has
also been dismissed by the Hon. Supreme
Court on 10.1.2001.

15. The learned counsels further
submitted that admittedly in the present
case, large scale irregularities have been
found and there was also allegations of
corruption and in such circumstances the
question of giving opportunity of hearing
to the selected candidates did not arise
and, therefore, the selection had rightly
been cancelled. Reliance was placed upon
a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India and others
vs. O. Chakradhar reported in JT 2002 (2)
SC 191.

16. Sri Anil Bhushan learned
counsel submitted that pursuant to the
advertisement notice no. 1 of 1996 issued
in November, 1996, the selection process
took place and the persons selected
therein had also been issued appointment
letters and orders for joining the training
as such they were necessary parties in; the
writ petition and in their absence no relief
could have been granted. He relied upon
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
432
the decision in the case of Ram Janam
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in AIR 1994 SC 1722.

17. Sri B.D. Madhyan learned
counsel appearing for the respondent writ
petitioners submitted that even though it
is well settled that mere inclusion in the
select list does not at all confer on the
candidates an indefeasible right to be
appointed but that is one aspect of the
matter. The other aspect of the mater is
that the State should act fairly and whole
exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. He
relied upon the decision of Hon. Supreme
Court in the case of Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and
another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
and others reported in JT 1993 (2) 688,
wherein it has been held that the
Government has no absolute discretion
in the matter. It must act fairly and it
cannot pick and choose and approve
part of it and reject other part and
must record reasons for approval of
one set of candidates and disapproval
of other candidates. The Government
cannot quietly and without good and
valid reasons nullify the whole exercise
and tell the candidates when they
complain that they have no legal right
to appointment. No Government can
adopt
such
a
stand
with
any
justification today.

18. He further relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Maharastra State Board of
Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi and
others reported in JT 1991 (2) SC 296
wherein it has been held that "If order
cancelling examination came to be
passed, the record should indicate
reason though the order may not
contain reasons, and the order has to
confirm the test of reasonableness and
fairness. The order must be passed
bonafide and on some concrete and
tangible material."

19. According to Sri Madhyan, the
irregularities pointed out by the Scrutiny
Committee could have been rectified and
there was no necessity of cancelling the
examination
particularly
when
the
Scrutiny Committee did not find any
money having changed hands. He relied
upon the decision of Hon. Supreme Court
in the case of Munna Roy vs. Union of
India and others reported in JT 2000 (9)
SC 168. He further submitted that the
order has to be judged on the basis of
reasons mentioned in the order and cannot
be supplemented by fresh reasons or in
the shape of affidavits or otherwise. He
relied upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder
Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi and
others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.

20. Having heard the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that large scale irregularities were
committed by the Recruitment committee
while making selection pursuant to the
advertisement no. 2 of 1994. The
Recruitment committee had given a
complete go bye to the Rules and did not
act fairly. It has also come on record by
means of supplementary affidavit of Jai
Singh Chauhan, Security Commissioner,
R.P.F., D.L.W., Varanasi affirmed on
16.8.2000 which forms part of record of
Special Appeal No. 80 of 1998 that a
C.B.I. enquiry was instituted in respect of
the recruitment/selection made by Sri
Mewa Lal and Sri Sekey Ram the present
chairman
who
had
also
done
the
recruitment
of
RPF
constables
in
Northern Railway and the C.B.I had
2 All] Ramesh Chandra Singh and others Vs. Amar Nath Singh and others
433
submitted the charge- sheet against the
chairman Mewa Lal and Sekhi Ram. A
criminal case under Section 120-B of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, has been
filed before the Special Judge, C.B.I.
Lucknow and both these persons were
arrested and remained in jail from
20.11.1996 to 7.1.1999 and 28.11.1998 to
14.1.1999 respectively.

21. In this background the question
is as to what is the legal right of the
respondents- writ petitioners. They have
merely been selected and put in panel of
select list. No appointment letter has been
issued to them. Can such a person claim
any right to command writ of mandamus
to the authorities to issue appointment
letters?'

22. In the case of Shankarsan Dash
Vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1612),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that '
it is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment
and adequate number of candidates are
found fit, the successful candidates
acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed, which cannot be legitimately
denied.'

23. Ordinarily the notification
merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified
candidates
to
apply
for
recruitment and on their selection they do
not acquire any right to the post. Unless
the relevant recruitment rules so indicate,
the State is under no legal duty to fill up
all or any of the vacancies. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that it does not
mean that the State has the licence of
acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not to fill up the vacancies has to
be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons.

24. Thus, the respondents- writ
petitioners do not acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed merely because their
names appeared in the select list. The only
question which is to be seen as to whether
the Railway authorities have acted in a
fair manner in cancelling the recruitment
or not, or it acted in arbitrary manner. The
reasons for cancelling the recruitment as
found by the scrutiny committee has
already been mentioned above. From
perusal of the said reasons, it leaves no
manner of doubt that the recruitment
committee had acted arbitrarily in making
selection by giving a go bye to all the
Rules and procedure and when asked to
rectify the irregularities, declined to do so.
It has come on record that the entire
recruitment process was a result of
malpractice and corruption. A C.B.I.
enquiry was ordered in respect of
recruitment made by Sri Mewa Lal and
Sri Sekey Ram of RPF constables in
Northern Railway and the C.B.I had filed
charge sheet against them and both of
them were arrested and remained in jail
for a considerable period. This is a
relevant
factor
to
be
taken
into
consideration. In this background, it
cannot be said that the Railway authorities
acted
in
any
arbitrary
manner
in
cancelling the result of recruitment
pursuant to the advertisement no. 2 of
1994.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India and others Vs.
Tarun K. Singh and others (Civil Appeal
Nos. 430-35/2001 decided on 10.1.2001)
has held that the process of selection
which stands vitiated by adoption of large
scale malpractice to a public office,
cannot be permitted to be sustained by the
Court of law. That apart, an individual
applicant for any particular post does not
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
434
get a right to be enforced by a Mandamus
unless and until he is selected in the
process of selection and gets the letter of
appointment.

26. In view of the foregoing
discussions, it is held that the respondent
writ petitioners had no legal right for a
mandamus to maintain present petition as
their names had only appeared in the
select list and appointment letters had not
been issued to them.

27. The contention of Sri Anil
Bhushan that the candidates who have
been
selected
pursuant
to
the
advertisement no. 1 of 1996 ought to have
been impleaded and were necessary
parties in the writ petition, in absence of
which, no relief could have been granted
also cannot be said to be without any
merit. In the present case the respondent
writ petitioners had challenged the
issuance
of
fresh
advertisement
in
pursuance of which selection had already
taken place and orders for training had
also been issued and, thus the selected
candidate ought to have been made parties
as they were proper and necessary parties,
in the absence of which the petition itself
was not maintainable. The principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ram Janam Singh is fully
applicable in the present case.

28. So far as the decision of Munna
Roy (supra) is concerned the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the said case has held
that if the administrative authority takes a
decision and the reasons for such decision
are erroneous then such a decision can be
interfered with by Court of law. In the
said case, the successful candidates
possessed Graduate Degree whereas the
minimum
qualification
required
was
matriculation and the selection was
cancelled on the ground of higher
qualification and dubious method had
been adopted for selection. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court came to the conclusion
that
if
a
candidate
possesses
a
qualification higher than the required
qualification and the advertisement itself
had prescribed the same then how can the
authority come to a conclusion that
selection has been made by adopting a
dubious method.

29. In the present case, the Scrutiny
Committee had pointed out concrete
materials to show that irregularities in
large scale has been committed by the
recruitment committee which inspite of
opportunity given to the recruitment
committee, the Chairman of the said
committee declined to remove for obvious
reasons, thus leaving no option but to the
authorities to cancel the entire selection.

30. In the case of Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary Education, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
order should record some where the
examination has been cancelled even
though the order may not contain reasons.
Admittedly in the present case, the
authorities have recorded the reasons for
cancelling the recruitment, which has
already been mentioned herein above.
They cannot be said to be irrelevant or
arbitrary.

31. In the case of Asha Kaul (supra),
the Hon. Supreme Court has held that it is
not open to the State to approve a part of
the list and disapprove the balance. No
such thing has happened in the present
case. The authorities have cancelled the
entire select list. Thus, no benefit can be
derived from the decision of the Hon'ble
2 All] Sonebhadra Minor Mineral Lease/Permit Holders and others Vs. State of U.P. & ors
435
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The
reasons which led to cancellation of the
select list has been examined by the Court
and the Court is of the opinion that they
are relevant and the authorities have not
acted in any arbitrary manner.

32. So far as the question of giving
opportunity of hearing to the writ
petitioners, before cancelling the select
list is concerned, it may be mentioned that
they do not have any legal right and,
therefore
the
question
of
giving
opportunity of hearing to them before
cancelling the select list does not arise. In
the case of Union of India vs. Chakradhar
Sharma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that 'If the mischief played
is so widespread and all pervasive,
affecting the result, so as to make it
difficult to pick out the persons who have
been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully
deprived of their selection, in such case it;
will neither be possible nor necessary to
issue individual show cause notices to
each selectee. The only way out would be
to cancel the whole selection. Motive
behind the irregularities committed also
has its relevance.' The principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
fully applicable in the present case. Thus,
it is held that the writ petitioners were not
at all entitled to any show cause notice or
opportunity
of
hearing
before
the
cancellation of the entire selection.

33. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the impugned judgment and
the order of the learned Single Judge is set
aside. All the three Special Appeals are
allowed. However the parties shall bear
their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 18.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE D.R. CHAUDHARY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5339 of 2002

Sonebhadra Minor Mineral Lease/Permit
Holders Association and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vinod Swaroop
Sri S.P. Kesharwani
Sri Vijay Singh
S.C.

Forest Act- section 2 (4) (b) (iv)- the
District Magistrate after considering the
material submitted before him should
decide within one month whether the
petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act nor not. (held in para
3)

The petitioners should approach the
District Magistrate, Sonbhadra with a
copy of this order and the District
Magistrate, Sonbhadra after considering
the
material
submitted
before
him
should decide with one month whether
the petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act nor not. If it is found
that they are not forest produce no
transit fee shall be charged from the
petitioners and the transit fee already
realized from the petitioners shall be
refunded with two months.
Case law referred.
JT 2000 (4) SC 341