Sanjay Kumar vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the failure of the Respondents to serve him with the intimation of the schedule of the interview as part of the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (referred to as ''CRPF'' hereafter) through the Staff Selection Commission (Central Police Organization) Examination-2009, even though he had admittedly qualified in the written examination as well as the Physical Endurance Test (''PET'' hereafter) and the physical test.

The undisputed facts giving rise to the writ petition are briefly noticed hereafter. On 18th March, 2002, the Petitioner was selected and appointed as a constable in the CRPF as a scheduled caste candidate. While serving with the Force at Daltanganj, Jharkhand in the year 2009, the Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector/GD through the Staff Selection Commission (CPO) Examination-2009.

The Petitioner had successfully appeared in the written examination as per the result declared by the Staff Selection Commission arrayed as Respondent No. 3 before us. Despite having cleared the Physical Endurance Test and the physical test as well on 11th January, 2010, the Petitioner failed to receive any call letter for appearing in the interview which was part of the notified selection process. The Petitioner learnt of the interviews being conducted by the Respondents for the reason that a colleague who had also applied for and undertaken the written examination and the physical test, received a call letter for appearing in the interview on 8th June, 2010. The result of the selection process for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors in the Central Police Organization Examination-2009 was declared by the Respondents in the Employment News in its 28th May to 4th June, 2010 edition. The Petitioner had thereupon learnt that he had been found fit in the medical examination and his name figured at serial No. 931. Efforts of the Petitioner to seek information from the Staff Selection Commission with regard to the interview were of no avail. The Petitioner was informed that the call letter of the Petitioner had been sent to him through the CRPF.

Aggrieved by the above action of the Respondents in not allowing the Petitioner to appear in that interview, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to allow him to appear in the interview and, if found fit to appoint him to the post of Sub-Inspector/GD.

The Respondent No. 3 has filed a counter affidavit before this Court wherein the above factual narration is not disputed. The Respondent No. 3 has explained that the examination for recruitment to the post of SI/GD is a three tier examination which includes firstly, the written examination; secondly the physical endurance test including the measurement of physical standards required for the post and a medical examination and, thirdly, an interview. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been pointed out that the Petitioner had been found successful in the written examination on 6th September, 2009 and fit for appointment in the physical endurance test as well as the medical test conducted on 11th and 12th January, 2010.

The Respondent No. 3 has also submitted that the call letter for the interview was sent by speed post on 10th May, 2010 to all successful similarly situated candidates. The interviews of the candidates were conducted thereafter on 28th May, 2010. Copy of the call letter dated 4th May, 2010 alongwith the list of the letters dispatched through speed post has been placed on record. It has further been contended that the schedule of the interviews was also displayed on the website (www.sscnr.com) which is maintained by the Respondent No. 3 for this purpose.

So far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is undisputed that from 28th May, 2010 to 16th June, 2010, the Petitioner was serving with the 134th battalion of the CRPF at Latihar, Jharkhand, a naxalite affected area. The Petitioner has disputed that any call letter was served upon him and he denies receipt of any information with regard to the interview. In this regard, a letter dated 3rd July, 2010 from the Commandant of the 134 battalion has been also placed on record.

In view of the stand taken by Respondent No. 3 as well as the explanation given by the Petitioner, on 27th September, 2010, we had noted the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that he was posted in hard and remote nexalite affected areas where there was no possibility of receipt of any postal communication. It had also been observed by us that the Petitioner and the other CRPF personnel who were so posted, had no access to any means of communications, let alone internet access in the remote areas where they were performing duties. Postal communications would certainly be difficult, if not impossible. In view of the peculiar issue with regard to the non-receipt of a letter of interview in the circumstances raised in the present case, it had been observed that this aspect required to be considered immediately at the highest level of the Respondents.

Despite several opportunities, the Respondents have been unable to place proof of service of the call letter dated 4th May, 2010 which has been claimed to have been issued in favour of the Petitioner. So far as the copy of the letter placed before us and the list of letters stated to have been dispatched through speed post is concerned, we find that the same is addressed to the Petitioner through the 134th Battalion of the CRPF.

As against the claim of issuance of this communication, we find that the Commandant of the 134th Battalion has by his communication dated 3rd July, 2010 informed the Respondent No. 3 that no information with regard to the interview was received or made available to the Petitioner. There is also no evidence that the Petitioner had access to any internet facilities while posted at the remote area.

It is also noteworthy that the Commandant has also pointed out that the Respondent No. 3 did not prescribe the schedule of the interviews in the intimation in the Employment News which may have obviated the possibility of non-receipt of such letters. As per the notice in the Employment News, the Respondents had only informed the applicants that the date of interview would be communicated in the call letter. The Commandant has confirmed that the communication stated to have been sent by the Respondent No. 3 has not been received in the battalion and that the Petitioner was physically discharging his duties with the battalion in the remote and hard area. The Respondents are unable to place any proof of receipt of the said communications before us. There is, therefore, substance in the Petitioner''s contention that he did not receive any intimation of the scheduled date of the interview.

In view of the above, having cleared two tiers of the selection process, the Petitioner cannot be denied opportunity of undergoing the interview which was the last stage thereof.

We may also notice that the observations made by us in the order dated 27th October, 2010 and herein above as well with regard to the matter relating to service of communications upon CRPF personnel posted in remote or hard areas deserves immediate attention of not only the CRPF but the urgent attention of the Staff Selection Commission.

The Respondents have not stated before us that all vacancies to the post of Sub-Inspector/GD for which the Staff Selection Commission (CPO) Examination-2009 was conducted. In any case, when we had issued notice in the writ petition on 12th July, 2010, we had specifically directed that appointment, if any, made to the post in question would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. We had also directed that the Respondents shall keep the last appointee informed of the order passed by this Court. In view thereof, the entitlement of the Petitioner to participate in a fair and complete selection process cannot be denied for any reason.

In view of the above, we direct as follows:

(i) The Respondent No. 3 shall appoint a date and time for conducting the interview of the Petitioner in terms of the notified Staff Selection Commission (CPO) Examination - 2009 within a period of four weeks from today. The Petitioner shall be informed in writing against recorded delivery of the schedule date, time and place of the interview. It shall be the duty of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure that communication of such schedule, date, time & place of the interview is served upon the Petitioner within a reasonable period and that he is given sufficient time to prepare for the same.

(ii) The interview shall be conducted in any case within a period of ten weeks from today.

(iii) The Petitioner shall thereafter be placed appropriately in the merit list. On declaration of the result of the Petitioner, in case he is found successful, the Respondents shall intimate him of the result and shall take steps immediately for effecting his appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector/GD. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits upon such appointment as if he had been interviewed on the originally scheduled date.

(iv) The Respondent No. 3 shall also examine the issue of service of communications on staff members especially those who are serving in difficult areas and formulate guidelines for the same. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today and a report in this behalf shall be placed before the court. In case such report is not placed, the Registry shall place the writ petition before us.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

List before the Registrar (Appellate) for reporting compliance of the directions made at serial No. (iv) on 14th February, 2011.