Dismissed¶10

Gaurav Mahajan v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Apr 2024LPA/15/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gaurav Mahajan v. Union of India, LPA No.15 of 2020, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 09.04.2024 (Sushil Kukreja, J.; Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.). Keywords: Computer Programmer recruitment; Cantt Board; DGDE instructions; age relaxation sanction; cancellation of recruitment process letter dated 15.10.2012; lack of transparency (question paper, evaluation, viva voce by same group); plain-paper applications; RTI disclosure; selected candidate's indefeasible right to selection list; employer's discretion to fill post; mandamus for completion of selection refused; writ Court order dated 06.01.2020 upheld; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A selected person does not acquire an indefeasible right for inclusion of his name in the selection list against the advertised post. ¶8

Gaurav Mahajan Vs Union of India and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus that the respondents grant/consider his age relaxation and complete the selection process for the post of Computer Programmer, notwithstanding cancellation of the recruitment process. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The petitioner's name was recommended for appointment only subject to sanction of age relaxation by the competent authority, and in the meanwhile the competent authority decided to cancel the recruitment process, so the selection was never finalized.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

A selected person does not acquire an indefeasible right for inclusion of his name in the selection list against the advertised post.

¶8

Key takeaways

It is up to the employer to decide whether to fill the advertised post or not, subject to the decision not being arbitrary, malafide or made with ulterior motive.ratio¶8
One of the reasons assigned for cancellation of the recruitment process was that the entire process — preparation of question paper, evaluation of answer sheet and viva voce — undertaken by respondent No.4 lacked transparency.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA No.15 of 2020, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (decided 09.04.2024; oral judgment by Sushil Kukreja, J., sitting with Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.). Appellant Gaurav Mahajan, ranked Sr. No.1 in merit at interview for the post of Computer Programmer (aged 29 years, 2 months and 29 days as on 31.03.2011 against the advertised limit of 18–25 years), had his candidature recommended by the Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.4) subject to sanction of age relaxation by the competent authority. Before sanction, the competent authority, vide letter dated 15.10.2012, cancelled the recruitment and ordered a fresh process strictly per DGDE instructions, citing plain-paper applications contrary to the prescribed procedure and conduct of question-paper preparation, answer-sheet evaluation and viva voce by the same group, lacking transparency. Held: a selected person acquires no indefeasible right to inclusion in the selection list; filling or not filling the post is the employer's decision, provided it is not arbitrary, malafide or with ulterior motive; the recommendation being conditional and the process cancelled for want of transparency, the petitioner had no right to a mandamus for completion/finalization of the selection. The writ Court's order dated 06.01.2020 was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No.15 of 2020 Decided on: 09.04.2024

¶4

_________________________________________________________ Gaurav Mahajan ....Appellant Versus Union of India and others …Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. ____________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel. __________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

¶5

The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned writ Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) was dismissed.

¶6

Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Computer Programmer, vide advertisement issued in the

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

employment news. The age limit prescribed was 18 to 25 years as on 31.03.2011 and the age relaxation was provided for in the advertisement, which was subject to the approval by the competent authority and was to be granted after considering the experience of the candidate in question. In furtherance of the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the post advertised and 27 candidates fulfilling the eligibility conditions were called for the written test on 03.11.2011 and only 19 candidates appeared in the written test. Based on the performance of the written test, 3 candidates, including the petitioner, were short-listed for interview and on the same day, the interviews were also conducted, in which the petitioner was ranked Sr. No.1 in the merit. Since the petitioner was 29 years, 2 months and 29 days of age as on 31.03.2011, as such, his case for relaxation with respect to age was forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.4) to the competent authority. Thereafter when nothing was heard in the matter, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act, vide letter dated 01.11.2012 to solicit the information qua delay in his appointment and in furtherance thereof, the information was supplied, vide letter dated 24.11.2012 and it was informed that the competent authority, vide letter dated 15.10.2012, directed the Chief Executive Officer to cancel the

¶10

¶11

recruitment of Computer Programmer and initiate afresh recruitment process strictly as per DGDE instructions. Hence, the petitioner preferred the writ petition, assailing the cancellation of recruitment process qua the post of Computer Programmer and to direct the respondents to grant/ consider his case of age relaxation and to complete the selection process initiated for the said post.

¶12

The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2020. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant-petitioner preferred the instant appeal against the aforesaid impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-petitioner was the selected candidate and on the recommendations of respondent No.4, his name was recommended subject to sanction of age relaxation by the competent authority. He further contended that the respondent-authorities had themselves allowed the petitioner to appear in the interview alongwith two other candidates, who all were over age, as such, the respondents had condoned the upper age limit, however, it was only on the rejection of one Varsa Rathore only that the entire process was cancelled.

¶13

¶14

On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order is based on proper appreciation of facts and law, as such, the same does not call for any interference.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent and also carefully gone through the record of the case.

¶16

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was over age on the relevant date and as per letter dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure P-3 in writ petition), he was found suitable for the post, therefore, his case with respect to sanction for age relaxation for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer was sent by the Chief Executive Officer to the competent authority. However, vide letter dated 15.10.2012, directions were given by the competent authority to cancel the recruitment process of Computer Programmer and to initiate fresh recruitment process strictly as per DGDE instructions due to the following reasons:-

¶17

“c) The applications were invited on a plain paper. No “Form” of application was prescribed by the Cantt Board, which violates th procedure for recruitment prescribed by the DGDE letter No.76/Misc./Corr)C/DE/10 dated 12.11.2010 (circulated by this Dte vide No.15/428/ Ruling/Cantt/DE dated 25.11.2012.

¶18

¶19

d) Entire recruitment process in this case i.e. preparation of question paper, evaluation of answer sheet, viva voce was conducted by the same group of persons who were well aware about the performance of the candidates in written test which lacks transparency.”

¶20

Perusal of the aforesaid letter shows that one of the

¶21

reasons assigned for cancellation of the recruitment process was that the entire recruitment process i.e. preparation of question paper, evaluation of answer sheet, viva voce undertaken by respondent No.4 lacked transparency. Needless to state that a selected person does not acquire indefeasible right for inclusion of his name in the selection list against the post advertised and it is up to the employer to take a decision whether to fill up the post or not, however, subject to the conditions that decision taken must not be arbitrary, malafide or with ulterior motive.

¶22

In the instant case, though the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment, but the recruitment process could not be finalized as the recommendation of his name was

¶23

subject to sanction of age relaxation by the competent authority and in the meanwhile, the competent authority decided to cancel the recruitment process for the reasons that the entire recruitment

¶24

process undertaken by respondent No.4 lacked transparency. Therefore, the learned writ Court has rightly observed that the

¶25

¶26

petitioner has no right to seek mandamus for completion of recruitment process and finalizing the selection process in his favour. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.01.2020, passed by the learned writ Court.

¶27