Sudheer Kumar vs The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge

Plaintiff Sudheer Kumar has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs as damages suffered by him on account of certain inactions on the part of officials of the defendants. Defendants undertook recruitment process for filling up the posts of Graduate Engineers (JTO Examination 2005). Plaintiff applied for the said post and also cleared the initial examination, which was held on 22nd January, 2006. Vide letter dated 28th July, 2006, he was informed that he stands provisionally selected. On 28th July, 2006, plaintiff was asked to submit the original certificates/documents with regard to his qualifications and eligibility, which he submitted on 4th August, 2006. It is the plaintiff''s specific grievance that despite his requests (both oral and written) and more particularly made vide letter dated 8th July, 2007, these documents were not returned to him. Though defendants promised him that needful would be done in November, 2006, but such promises turned out to be false. Eventually these documents were returned to him vide letter dated 23rd February, 2007 written by some official of the defendants. Even after receipt of these documents, plaintiff was not informed about his final appointment/posting, and as such he sent a legal notice dated 11th September, 2007.

Significantly plaintiff had also applied for appointment to different posts at different places with different organizations. He was selected for the post of a Lecturer at NIT Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and also post of a Senior Scientist in the DRDO Office, Ministry of Defence, but for want of original documents, he was not given appointment. As such, plaintiff suffered loss and served legal notice dated 19th April, 2009, claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. This was towards the pain and mental agony which he suffered in addition to the financial loss. Significantly plaintiff also got served another notice claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lacs.

The plaint was filed on 24th July, 2009 and in the suit, notice was issued to the defendants. Plaintiff also impleaded Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short BSNL), H.P. Circle as defendant No. 2.

Defendants filed joint written statement, inter alia denying that plaintiff suffered any loss on account of alleged negligence attributed to any one of their officials. Defendants admit that since plaintiff had cleared his written examination for the post of Graduate Engineer (Junior) and his name figured in the list of qualified candidates, who had appeared in the examination from H.P. Circle, he was required to submit the documents in original. These documents were required to be verified at the Circle level, as the cadre of Junior Telecom Officer is Circle based and the mode of selection is through All India Competitive Examination. Final selection list was to be prepared only after result of all the candidates was to be compiled and order of appointment was to be issued only to such candidates whose name figured in the final selection list. Plaintiff''s name did not figure in such list. Defendants have specifically denied any oral request made by the plaintiff for return of his documents. However, return of documents to the plaintiff vide communication dated 23rd February, 2007 is admitted. Oral assurances by the defendants, as alleged by the plaintiff, that documents would be returned in due course, stand specifically denied. Specifically it is pleaded that in the month of March, 2007, when plaintiff learnt that he could not be finally selected, he requested for return of his documents, which request was acceded to within time, as large number of candidates had initially qualified the examination and documents of such candidates, were required to be scrutinized minutely.

Plaintiff filed replication, reiterating the stand taken in the plaint.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and interest as claimed, if so, to what extent? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his own act, conduct and acquisence? OPD

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Parties led their respective evidence. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and two other witnesses, i.e. Shri P.S. Kanwar (PW-2) and Shri Krishan Kumar (PW-3). In defence, defendants examined three witnesses, i.e. Shri Balbir Singh (DW-1), Shri Amar Singh (DW-2) and Ms Indira Thakur (DW-3).

ISSUES No. 1, 2 & 3

These issues can be dealt with together, regardless of the onus of proof which the parties have been put to discharge.

Plaintiff Shri Sudheer Kumar (PW-1), in Court has clearly deposed that he submitted the documents to Shri Amar Singh, the then AGM, which were returned only on 23rd February, 2007. He states that he was selected for the post of a Lecturer (on contract basis) at NIT, Hamirpur and also as a Junior Scientist with the DRDO, but since documents were not returned to him by Shri Amar Singh he missed the opportunity of joining on such posts. He states that the documents were given by him to Shri Amar Singh vide letter dated 4th August, 2006 (Ex. DW-1/A), in response to letter 28th July, 2006 (Ex. PW-1/A).

Communication dated 28th July, 2006 only reveals that plaintiff was provisionally selected for the post and was required to submit the documents, failing which his name was liable to be deleted from the list of approved candidates. It does not categorically convey that plaintiff''s name was finally selected.

Most significantly, he states that he visited the office of the BSNL, New Delhi where he was told that the certificates (documents) could not be supplied to him, though it was open for him to take them back at his own risk and peril. Thereafter, he represented (Mark A) and sent legal notices dated 11th September, 2007 (Ex. PW-1/C) vide registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E. Subsequently also legal notices dated 20th June, 2008 (Ex. PW-1/F), 24th September, 2009 (Ex. PW-1/H), 14th February, 2009 (Ex. PW-1/K) and 19th April, 2009 (Ex. PW�1/N) were sent. But then he admits to have received reply dated 25th June, 2009 (Ex. PW-1/O).

Plaintiff was also informed that the documents were required for verification of qualifications to complete the pre-recruitment formalities and the said documents were returned since name of the plaintiff did not figure in the final merit list of selected candidates. It stood clarified that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the list who qualified from a particular Circle, did not necessarily mean that all the candidates of the said list would automatically find place in the final select list, which eventually was to be drawn on the basis of all India merit and subject to available vacancies. Allegation with regard to plaintiff approaching the defendants for getting the documents back was specifically denied.

Though he states that he could not join as a Lecturer at NIT Hamirpur, but I find that there is nothing on record to substantiate this version of his. He has not produced any legal proof to show that he could not join either at NIT Hamirpur or in the Office of DRDO, for want of his original certificates/ testimonials. Also except for a bald statement to the effect that "I have incurred a loss of about Rs. 20,00,000/- and also required to be compensated by the defendants by way of decree with costs", he does not substantiate as to in what manner he suffered such losses. What is the salary that he would have got had he joined as a Lecturer at NIT Hamirpur or as Junior Scientist at DRDO, has not been so stated by him. That he could not join these posts only on account of non-availability of documents/testimonials has also not been clearly proved and established by him.

Now significantly in his cross-examination, plaintiff contradicts his earlier version by deposing that he did not seek return of these documents in writing but made oral requests when he visited the office of the defendants. Which of the defendants did he personally visit is not clearly stated by him. He made a vain attempt of naming Shri Amar Singh whose office he had visited but then this version of his does not appear to be true for the simple reason that he does not remember the exact date of such visit. Shri Amar Singh (DW-2) has specifically denied the same. Also his testimony is vague to that effect. He only states that "I might have visited Shimla from my home town between 4.8.2006 to 23.2.2007 ten times". Further, plaintiff has clarified that he did not request for return of the documents in writing as he was assured by the AGM that the same could be taken by him at his own risk and peril. Most significantly he states that "I though in my own wisdom that I should not take the documents, since I was selected for the post-in-question". Now this totally demolishes his case of alleged false assurances made by the defendants for returning the documents or his having suffered any damages on account of non-return of the same within time.

Evidence led by the parties reveal that final selection process for the post in question was not complete. Only when result of all the centres was compiled, the final select list could be circulated and till then there was no occasion for the defendants to have returned the documents to any one of the candidates or the plaintiff, who himself chose not to take them back under the avowed hope of getting himself selected for the post in question. In cross-examination he also qualifies his earlier version by deposing that "Since, I was to join at B.S.N.L., I thought it not proper to ask for the documents even after receipt of the selection letter on 3.8.2006, though I had to join the N.I.T., Hamirpur on or before 8.12.2006, since I was not possessing the testimonials/certificates at that time".

Crucially plaintiff has not been able to show, how and in what manner he suffered damages and how non-return of the documents within time, on the part of the defendants has resulted into pain, suffering, mental agony or financial loss.

On the other hand, carefully scrutinizing of testimonies of the defendants'' witnesses would reveal that plaintiff was apprised of the fact that though the selection process of the candidates to the post in question was on, it was entirely open for him to take back the documents, if he so desired. Specifically no assurances as alleged by the plaintiff were made by the defendants.

Shri P.S. Kanwar (PW-2) has simply proved letter (Ex. PW-2/A), dated 3rd August, 2006, of appointment of the plaintiff to the post of Lecturer, but then this letter clarifies that the appointment is purely on contract basis and that too "for the period from the date of joining to 8th December, 2006 or till the regular faculty joins whichever is earlier". Thus, plaintiff could have served on the said post only for a maximum period of four months.

Plaintiff has tired to prove communication dated 4th October, 2006 (Mark-C) through the testimony of Shri Krishan Kumar (PW-3), but then this document cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law and read as a piece of legal evidence. Be that as it may be, it is just a call letter for interview for selection of Scientist and nothing beyond that.

Hence, in my considered view, plaintiff has not been able to establish his case. It cannot be said that he is entitled to damages and interest as prayed for in the suit. Plaintiff''s own acts and conduct disentitle him to file the present suit as no cause of action arisen in favour of the plaintiff. As such, suit is also not maintainable. Issues No. 1 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 4

During the course of hearing it could not be pointed out as to how the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, as such, this issue is decided against the defendants.

For the aforesaid reasons, plaintiff''s suit is dismissed, without any order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.