Altaf Hussain And Others vs Union Of India And Others

Sanjay Dhar, J

The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, whereby they have cancelled the advertisement notification No. Ed-715/GNR dated 10.02.2016.

It appears that respondent No. 2 had issued the advertisement notification dated 10.02.2016 (supra) inviting applications for the posts of Grameen Dak Sewaks for various branch offices of the Post Offices. The petitioners, it seems had applied for the said post pursuant to the aforesaid notification.

During the selection process, petitioner No. 1 was asked to submit his Computer Literacy Certificate which he did. Thereafter, verification of petitioner No. 1 was conducted by the CID of J&K Police and he was cleared but no selection/appointment order was issued in his favour. This compelled the petitioners to serve a legal notice upon the respondents and in answer to the said legal notice, the respondents addressed a communication dated 05.04.2018 whereby the petitioners were informed that the selection process has been cancelled in terms of letter No. ED-715/GNR dated 25.10.2017.

The petitioners have challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the grounds that the same is illegal and arbitrary. It has been contended that the respondents have abandoned the selection process only to accommodate some blue eyed persons, who could not make it to the select list. It has been submitted that because the petitioners were selected as such, they are entitled to be appointed as Grameen Dak Sewaks.

The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that during the selection process, verification of the documents of the petitioners was undertaken to ascertain the genuineness of the certificates submitted by them but in the meantime, the recruitment process had to be kept on hold in view of the instructions received from the Postal Directorate in terms of letter No. 17-23/2016/GDS dated 01.08.2016. In the said communication, it was clearly indicated that the engagement/selection of all types of Grameen Dak Sevaks has to be stopped forthwith. It is for this reason that the selection process was abandoned.

The respondents have admitted that petitioner No. 1 was figuring at serial No. 2 in the merit list and he was asked to produce a Computer Literacy Certificate and other certificates within seven days. However, it has been submitted that while the verification process was underway, the aforesaid instructions were issued regarding stopping of selection process with immediate effect.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

So far as the facts relevant to the controversy are concerned, the same are not in dispute. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioners had applied for post of Grameen Dak Sewak pursuant to advertisement notification dated 10.02.2016. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner No. 1 was figuring at serial No. 2 of the merit list, whereas candidate at serial No. 1, had opted for some higher post and his candidature was treated as withdrawn. The only question that is required to be determined is as to whether petitioner No. 1, who was admittedly the next meritorious candidate in the panel, had acquired a right to claim appointment against the post of Grameen Dak Sewak and whether the respondents could abandon the selection process.

The legal position in this regard is no more res intetgra. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held that a candidate does not acquire a right to be appointed against a vacancy by mere inclusion of his name in the select list. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Asha Koul and another v State of J&K and others, (1993) 2 SCC 573. Again a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashpal Singh and others vs Kamal Kishore and others, 2017 (2) JKJ 537 has concluded that the State Government has a right to withdraw the advertisement notice and that a candidate has no vested right for consideration for appointment in terms of the advertisement notification.

In face of the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that a candidate has no right to challenge the action of the State or any other authority whereby an advertisement notification has been withdrawn or the posts have been re-advertised. In the instant case, the petitioners were not even selected. Their certificates were only under the process of verification when the selection process was abandoned by the respondents. Therefore, they had not acquired any vested right to be appointed as Grameen Dak Sewaks pursuant to the advertisement notice issued for the purpose. The respondents were well within right to abandon the process of selection and they had a good reason for doing so, as the competent authority had decided to stop the engagement of Grameen Dak Sewaks and instead it was decided that selection of all categories of Grameen Dak Sewaks shall be held through online mode. Therefore, there was a plausible reason for the respondents to abandon the selection process at a stage when neither any final select list was prepared nor any appointment orders had been issued in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the impugned action of the respondents does not suffer from any illegality.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition the same is, accordingly, dismissed.