Sunil Saini vs Food Corporation Of India

Sunil Gaur, J

Petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant General Manager (Law), advertised by respondent and according to petitioner, it was disclosed on

respondent’s website on 21st April, 2016 that petitioner has been shortlisted provisionally for the said post and ‘offer of appointment’ will

follow shortly. Petitioner claims that despite various representations, he has not been given ‘offer of appointment’ and hence this petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner draws the attention of this Court to respondent’s E-Mail of 7th September, 2016 (Annexure P-5) to submit that

respondent had sought certain information including clarification regarding the vakalatnamas submitted by petitioner to indicate his work experience.

Attention is also drawn by petitioner’s counsel to E-Mail of 14th March, 2017 (Annexure P-7) sent by petitioner to respondent clarifying that in the

vakalatnamas furnished, he had used initials/half signatures, whereas in the Application Form for the post in question, he had put his full signatures.

Vide Communication of 3rd May, 2017 (Annexure P-8) respondent had rejected petitioner’s representation of 14th March, 2017 (Annexure P-7)

by a cryptic order.

Petitioner’s counsel relies upon certain information obtained under the RTI Act (Annexure P-9 colly.) to show that the Committee constituted

for document verification [vakalatnamas of the candidates for the post of Assistant General Manager (Legal)] has opined that the findings appear to

be in consonance with the Recruitment Notice. Attention of this Court is also drawn by petitioner’s counsel to information under RTI (Annexure

P-9) to show that in the Select List, petitioner was at Sl.No.2 out of three selected candidates with two waitlist candidates for the OBC category.

At the outset, learned counsel for respondent clarifies that non-submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ is not a ground for rejection of

petitioner’s candidature. He informs that one candidate from the waitlist of OBC category has been appointed in place of petitioner few months

back. It is pointed out that petitioner had not given supporting documents, like the orders passed in the cases in which he had appeared, to clear the

controversy regarding vakalatnamas. So, it is submitted by respondent’s counsel that this petition deserves to be rejected.

Upon hearing and on perusal of order of 3rd May, 2017 (Annexure P-8), I find that petitioner’s representation has been cryptically rejected,

which is unwarranted in view of fact that petitioner is shown to be at Sl. No. 2 in the Select List. So far as mis-matching of signatures on

vakalatnamas is concerned, I find that this aspect cannot be blown out of proportion as it is expected that respondent ought to have called upon

petitioner to provide the certified copies of orders to allay the apprehension of mis-matching of signatures on the vakalatnamas. This would have

clinched the issue of mis-matching of petitioner’s signatures on vakalatnamas in question. Such a view is taken in view of the fact that the

Committee constituted for the document verification vis-à -vis vakalatnamas had opined that the petitioner’s qualification is in consonance with

the Recruitment Notice. There is nothing on record to show as to why the opinion of the Committee was overruled while rejecting petitioner’s

candidature on the ground of mis-matching of signatures on the vakalatnamas vis-a-vis recruitment relating documents.

During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that this was petitioner’s last chance to apply for the post in question.

Taking a compassionate view, this Court directs the respondent to re-consider petitioner’s representation of 29th May, 2017 (Annexure P-10)

provided petitioner supplies the certified copies of the orders passed in relation to the vakalatnamas furnished to respondent, within four weeks. If it is

so done, then respondent shall decide petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-10) afresh by passing a speaking order within six weeks of receipt

of certified copies of orders in question and the fate of the representation be conveyed to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, to enable petitioner to

have recourse to law, if need be. It is clarified that if certified copies of the orders relating to vakalatnamas in question furnished by petitioner are

found in order, then respondent shall not insist upon the discrepancy of the signatures on vakalatnamas vis-Ã -vis Application Form, etc..

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the selection made by respondent from the waitlist of OBC category on the

post of Assistant General Manager (Law) shall be subject to the outcome of the representation. Respondent shall also intimate the candidate selected

from the wait-list of OBC category about the rider put by this Court and copy of this order shall be also furnished to him.

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to both the sides.