Virendra Singh vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure P/1) whereby the entire selection except for the post of Constable (Trade-men) is cancelled by the respondents.

Shri Rajendra Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that eligible candidates appeared in selection process for the post of Constable (GD). The said selection is erroneously cancelled by the impugned order. It is submitted that as per GOP 78/97 dated 02.04.1997 (Annexure P/3) the general directions were issued. As per clause 5 of GOP, the selection process is supervised by senior police officers. As per clause 11(6), the selection can be cancelled only in certain circumstances. In the present case, selection is mechanically cancelled. He further submits that as per PHQ letter dated 24.05.2006 the local police units were permitted to impart education by way of coaching to the wards of police personnels. Accordingly, certain candidates obtained coaching and there is no illegality in the same. Respondents have acted contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Girjesh Shrivastava and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others,

Per Contra, Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, Govt. Advocate relied on various paragraphs of the return.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Shri Bhargava submits that the principle of "weeding out" may be applied in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner does not belong to family of police personnels and therefore, his selection should not have been cancelled. In the return, it is stated that certain complaints were received in relation to malpractices in the recruitment process. Enquiry was conducted and it was found that a police personnel namely Devendra Singh Yadav without any permission and without any intimation, imparted training to certain candidates. Model question papers were circulated amongst the candidates. Said Shri Yadav became a part of selection process because of which serious objections and complaints were preferred. Sizable number of candidates who received coaching from Shri Yadav and facilitated with model question papers were selected. Enquiry report in this regard is also placed on record as Annexure R/1 and document dated 25.02.2009. It is further submitted that disciplinary action has been taken against Shri Yadav. It is submitted that because of involvement of Shri Yadav the entire selection process stood vitiated and polluted and therefore, the principle of "weeding out" will not apply in the matter.

In view of above stand of the parties, it is clear that in the entire selection process Shri Devendra Singh Yadav played an important role. In view of his role and on account of the fact that he distributed model question papers to his candidates, entire selection process was cancelled. Apart from this, clause 11 (2)(5) (I) reads as under:-

The enabling provision quoted above, makes it clear that recruitment process can be cancelled on receiving complaints of serious nature. On prima facie satisfaction of the authority, the selection can be cancelled. To record that satisfaction, preliminary enquiry was conducted and then selection was canceled. No flaw can be found in the said process adopted.

In the opinion of this Court, the entire selection process stood vitiated because of involvement of Shri Yadav in the selection process. To maintain transparency and fairness, the department has rightly decided to set aside the entire selection process except for the post of Constable (Trade-men) for which no coaching was given by Shri Yadav. Respondents have taken a plausible view which does not require any interference by this Court. The judgment of Girish Shrivastava (supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. Fairness is an integral part of good administration. The action of respondent is to maintain fairness and transparency. I find no reason to interfere.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No Costs.