Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar & Others v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Mar 2011CWP/760/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal judgment that terminated apprenticeship contracts due to alleged malpractice in selection, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding large-scale examinations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; no interference with impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Sandeep Kumar & Others Vs Unio… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 760-CAT of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. CWP No. 760-CAT of 2011 Date of Decision 10.03.2011

¶5

Sandeep Kumar & others ---Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & others ---Respondents

¶8

2. CWP No. 741-CAT of 2011

¶9

Satinder Kumar Maurya --Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India and others --Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶13

Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶17

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 741 and 760-CAT of 2011. Both the petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the common judgment dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). It has been held that in the examination held for recruitment of Trade Apprenticeship Training in Ordnance & Ordnance Equipment Factories was afflicted by use of unfair practices in selection. To authenticate the charges, one-man Board of Inquiry was constituted under the Chairmanship of

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP No. 760-CAT of 2011

¶20

the Additional General Manager. According to the inquiry report dated 08.01.2007 (R-6), all the petitioners had secured 100 marks each and their right/ wrong answers tallied in all the three cases, even the correspondence address given by the petitioners was the same. The finding of the Tribunal is discernible from paras 9 and 10 of its order, which reads as under:

¶21

“9. We find that the applicants did not controvert the fact that it has been clearly stated in their appointment letters in para 5 that the appointment will be temporary till a satisfactory police verification report had been received. The contents of the police verification report were also not controverted by the applicants. It, therefore, transpires that their case was not similar to other Apprentices who may have continued as such. The applicants were not able to provide any document to show that the police verification report by any other candidate, who was retained, had been found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, the charge of discrimination against the respondents is not proved. The respondents have also produced letters written to the applicants vide which the appointment letters had been withdrawn. As a result, the charge of oral termination of services is also not proved. Since the impugned orders have been passed in due exercise of the process reserved

¶22

CWP No. 760-CAT of 2011

¶23

-3-

¶24

in the terms of engagement of the applicants, the same is not open to any objection in law. It may not, therefore, be necessary to into other contentions raised by the respondents.

¶25

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the tenure of the applicants as apprentices was terminated in a valid manner and as per the provisions of the engagement letter. Therefore, there is no reason for interfering with the impugned orders. Accordingly, both the OAs are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that in case of mal-practices in the selection process, the decision of the authorities cannot be interfered with unless there are compelling reasons. In such cases, even the principle of natural justice some time has to be ignored because it is not possible to grant hearing to such a large number of students. For the aforesaid proposition, reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v . K.S. Gandhi and others

¶27

(1991) 2 SCC 716 . At the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners, we have granted many opportunities to the petitioners to produce the police verification report, which has not been produced. In any case, the findings of mal-practice in the selection process has

¶28

-4-

¶29

CWP No. 760-CAT of 2011

¶30

come on record. There is no room left for interference.

¶31