Pushpinder Singh & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging illegality and irregularities in the selection process undertaken for appointment to the post of Training Officer in various Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in the State of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.2010. The petitioners have sought quashing of the selection process and the consequential appointments of the selected candidates made vide appointment orders dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P/2) and 02.05.2013 (Annexure P/3).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Selection Committee has recommended the names of candidates who did not possess the requisite qualifications and had failed to furnish the essential documents as prescribed under the advertisement. It is further contended that the statutory recruitment rules, being mandatory in nature, are required to be scrupulously followed and any deviation therefrom would vitiate the selection process. Learned counsel would further submit that several discrepancies and irregularities have crept into the selection process, including non-compliance with the prescribed reservation roster, thereby rendering the entire selection process unsustainable in law.

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioners had earlier approached the Lok Ayog (Lokayukta) ventilating substantially similar grievances. The said complaints were duly considered, appropriate orders were passed and consequential action has already been initiated by the respondent authorities. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is devoid of merit and substance and deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have adopted the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and supported the stand taken by the State.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be appropriate, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to presume that the appointments of all 509 selected candidates are contrary to the statutory rules or that the entire selection process stands vitiated on account of the alleged irregularities. The allegations raised by the petitioners involve several factual aspects which would require detailed examination and an appropriate fact-finding inquiry. This Court, while exercising its limited power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot undertake a roving and fishing inquiry into the entire selection process or examine each individual appointment in the absence of an appropriate factual foundation.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government has already initiated an inquiry into the alleged irregularities and that disciplinary action has also been taken against certain officers. It is further submitted that the Government has identified the involvement of 22 senior officers in the alleged irregularities and proceedings against them are being undertaken in accordance with law.

In view of the fact that the State Government has already taken cognizance of the matter and is proceeding in accordance with law, this Court does not consider it appropriate to issue any further direction at this stage. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein shall not be construed as granting any clean chit to any officer or candidate allegedly involved in the irregularities.

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that certain selected candidates had earlier approached this Court by way of separate writ petitions, wherein directions were issued to the effect that, since the candidates had already been appointed and subsequently confirmed in service, their appointments could not be interfered with without holding an appropriate inquiry. In the aforesaid circumstances, when the matter is already under consideration of the State Government and appropriate proceedings are stated to be underway, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by issuing any further direction in the present petition at this stage.

However, it is made clear that, in the event the petitioners are aggrieved by any subsequent action or decision taken by the competent authority in relation to the selected candidates, they shall be at liberty to assail such action or decision before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners, the present writ petition stands disposed of.