Jitender Nath Tiwari vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner, in response to an advertisement published by the Respondent No. 1 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for the post of Assistant Superintendant in the Office of the Director General (Prison) in Respondent No. 2 Department of Prison, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had applied in the Unreserved Category and claims to have secured 110 marks in the Selection Test held therefor. He contends that candidates till 111 marks were selected. The present petition has been filed, impugning the selection process, for initiating inquiry into the alleged irregularities/malpractices in the examination, for striking down the examination, for verification of the signatures of the selected candidates.

Though I am of the opinion that the matter is in the domain of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) u/s 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being concerned with recruitment but at the insistence of the counsel for the Petitioner the matter has also been considered on merits.

The counsel for the Respondents also confirms that the matter ought to be considered by CAT.

The Petitioner claims the reliefs aforesaid on the following grounds:

a) That in the list of selected candidates, it was provided that the same was subject to verification of signatures of some of the selected candidates. The Petitioner avers that notwithstanding queries made through the medium of Right to Information Act, no satisfactory or positive answer has been given that the signatures were so verified. It is contended in para 17 of the petition that "the Respondents might have manipulated the things in the impugned examination and might have fabricated whole of the impugned examination process for their ulterior motives." The counsel for the Petitioner has also urged that without verification of signatures it is well-nigh possible that the person who appeared in the examination is different from the person who has been selected;

b) It is contended that in response to the RTI queries, it has been informed that five of the persons so selected have not joined. It is contended that the Petitioner having the next highest marks of 110 ought to have been selected against the vacancies of those candidates who have not joined;

c) It is lastly contended that a waiting list ought to have been prepared for the vacancies as aforesaid accruing.

At the outset, it may be stated that merely because the Petitioner had appeared in the examination or has the next highest marks to the selected candidates would not entitle the Petitioner to a right of appointment. The law in this regard is well established. A reference may be made to State of U.P. and Others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, and Rakhi Ray and Others Vs. The High Court of Delhi and Others, .

The counsel for the Petitioner has contended that this Court should conduct and direct an inquiry into the signatures. This Court cannot on such apprehensions expressed and of which there is no basis whatsoever entertain this petition and commence an inquiry. The Respondent No. 1 DSSSB in a counter affidavit filed (even though no formal notice of the petition has been issued as yet) has stated that the Respondent No. 1 DSSSB does not call the candidates for verification of documents and selection is processed and results are declared as per information available in the application forms and exam related documents and as such when some variation was noticed in signatures of some of the candidates, the Respondent No. 1 DSSSB indicated so against the name of such candidates in the result and requested the Respondent No. 2 Director General (Prison) to verify the authenticity of the signatures.

The Petitioner desires this Court to commence a roving and fishing enquiry. The same is not permissible. The Full Bench of this Court in Prakash Vir Shastri and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, refused an application seeking production of documents to find out if there had been any violation of Article 14 and held that the Petitioner should be decided on the material on record and under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court should not embark upon a roving enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court recently also in A.G.R. Investment Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, held that to make a roving enquiry does not come within the ambit and sweep of exercise of power under Article 226. The Apex Court also in A. Hamsaveni and Others, A. Soosai and Others, J. Devid Baskar and Others, S. Rameshbabu and Others and K. Parthasarathy and Others Vs. State of T.N. and Another, held that the petition can succeed only if the Petitioners make out a case but not to give a chance to establish a claim. Similarly, in N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, it was held that no roving enquiry is called for or justified within the scope of judicial review with reference to the private rights of an individual. Yet again in Sadananda Halo and Others Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others, the Apex Court held that it is not for the High Court to, at the instance of unsuccessful candidates, place itself into a position of fact finding commission and to commence a roving enquiry. Without the Petitioner specifically pleading with particulars any malpractice, an enquiry as sought cannot be commenced. The Respondent No. 2 as the recruiting agency, if satisfied that the candidates who had cleared the tests are the candidates selected, cannot be compelled to compare the signatures.

As far as the other two grounds are concerned, the counsel for the Respondents has handed over in the Court a copy of the communication dated 21st May, 2008 of the Respondent No. 1 DSSSB containing the policy decision against preparation of any waiting list and containing the decision to hold the examination afresh. It is also informed that the vacancies alleged are in the Reserved Categories and not in the Unreserved Categories and all the candidates selected in the Unreserved Category have joined. It is further disclosed that for the vacancies in the same post a fresh examination has already been scheduled.

The counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show any requirement for preparation of such waiting list.

There is no merit in the petition the same is dismissed.