AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi East Division, the 4th respondent herein, issued a Notification on 25.04.2013 proposing to fill
the post of Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) for the branch at Rawta. The selection process involved conducting of a written test and verification of
records. The applicant and various others responded to the notification.
The applicant contends that 5 candidates were shortlisted by the concerned authority and though he figured at Sl. No.5, she was considered for
appointment on account of the fact that the candidates selected at Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 either were already appointed or otherwise declined. The Assistant
Director General, GDS Department of Posts, the 2nd respondent herein, addressed a letter dated 01.08.2016 directing that the process of selection of
GDS shall be stopped forthwith. Thereafter, a fresh notification was issued changing the norms of selection through order dated 27.03.2017. This OA
is filed challenging the orders dated 01.08.2016 and 27.03.2017.
The applicant contends that the process of selection to the post of GDS has reached finality and at a time when the order of appointment was about
to be issued to her, the impugned orders were passed. She contends that there was no basis for cancellation of the selection process or for changing
the selection criteria.
The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them, the concerned authority prepared a list of 5 candidates and without even
referring to the offers given to the other candidates, the name of the applicant was chosen for consideration. It is stated that when the matter was
inquired into, it emerged that the so called centre at which the applicant and other candidates have taken examination did not exist at all, and
accordingly, the decision was taken to cancel the entire process.
Today, we heard Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and there was no representation for the respondents.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was one of the candidates, who responded to the notification issued by the 4th respondent, and that she figured
at Sl. No.5 in the list of candidates under consideration. She had gained access to the note sheets running into several pages, and on that basis, it is
stated that one after the other, candidates above her declined the offer and, accordingly, the choice fell upon her. Though this may appear to be
extraordinary, such a course cannot be said to be illegal ipso facto.
What made the respondents to give up the entire selection process is referable to a curious development. The candidates were said to have taken
the written test at Pragtisheelsheel Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Gohana (Sonepat). The efforts made by the respondents to locate the institute did not
fructify. Ultimately, the Superintendent of Posts, East Division, himself verified the matter and it emerged that the institute with such a name did not
exist at all. When such is the nature of irregularity that has crept into the selection process, one just cannot act upon the result of such a fraudulent
exercise. The applicant cannot be said to have acquired any right on account of the so called selection.
We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. Pending MA also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.