Anjani Kumar, Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) -This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by four petitioners, who are candidates in the selection for the post of constable civil police held in the year 2005 in the State of U. P., challenging the order dated 21st April, 2008, passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Union of India through the counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are deeply anguished due to inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in curbing the malpractces which occurred in the selection process of the constables of Civil Police/P.A.C./ Radio Police in the State of U. P. The petitioners have challenged their exclusion from the selection for the post of constable in the year 2005 and denied by respondent No. 1 to direct the holding of the investigation by C.B.I. in the malpractices in conducting the selection aforesaid. By the notification dated 6th January, 2005, which has been amended by notification dated 21st January, 2005 for recruitment of civil police constables in State of U. P., 6,091 vacancies was advertised by U. P. Police Head Quarter on 23rd July, 2005. Similar identical notification was published on 7th April, 2006 for 5,296 vacancies and vide notification dated 4th June, 2006 for 6,237 vacancies. It is further asserted by the petitioners that on 6th February, 2005, 10th April, 2006 and 23rd September, 2006, certain instructions/guidelines were issued by the Police Head Quarter, Allahabad for governing the respective recruitment process of constables (Civil Police) and these instructions contained detailed guidelines in respect of the schedule of recruitment and eligibility criteria of recruitment. The aforesaid guidelines prescribed the detailed procedure for preparation of one main register in which the marks obtained by the candidates for each item, such as written examination and interview etc., should be shown. It is further provided that the candidates, who had not qualified the physical eligibility test will not be entitled for written examination and for written examination it was compulsory for the candidates to obtain 50 per cent marks in each event of physical eligibility test and after awarding the marks the examiner will put the signature and mark the seal and the same will be sent under sealed cover to the Chairman of Selection Committee.
(3.) DURING the selection process a number of complaints were made by the candidates as well as representatives of public regarding grave irregularities and malpractices. The complaint in respect to different recruitment centres were also given to the concerned officials of different districts. It so happened that certain complaints were received in the office of Chief Minister, U. P. sent by Sri Mohd. Irshad Khan ; Sri R. P. Jaiswal ; Sri Radhey Lal Rawat and Sri Amresh Shukla (all members of Legislative Assembly, U. P.). On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the State Government issued direction to Director General of Police, U. P. to enquire into the allegations. In pursuant thereto a four member committee headed by Sri Shailja Kant Mishra, Additional Director General of Police was constituted to enquire into the charges of illegalities, corruption, nepotism, procedural irregularities and violations of Rules and instructions issued by the Headquarters by the Director General of Police, U. P., dated 13th June, 2007. The enquiry committee proceeded to conduct inquiry in respect of procedure and work of the Selection Committee, such as (1) physical efficiency text ; (2) written examination ; (3) interview ; and (4) tabulation work. This enquiry committee found that there were clear cut violation of recruitment instructions at large scale and irregularities and illegalities such as : 1. Marks of physical eligibility test were altered and added by the examiner in mark sheet ; 2.All those answer book of the written examination in which chest number and identification marks were mentioned by the candidate, found to have been checked and declared passed by the selection committee ; 3.The evaluation wrongly done by the examiner and alteration of the marks in the answer book ; 4.The hand writing of the names slip of the answer book and hand writing in the answer book both are different and some answers are written in different hand writing ; 5.In 108 copies of the written examination the extra marks were given by the examiner without any basis and all those candidates were declared passed. It is further submitted that if these extra marks are reduced then the candidate becomes failed. No merit list was prepared by the selection committee. The over writing on marks made in the answer book were neither signed by the examiner and nor countersigned by the Chairman of selection committee ; and 6.There is no signature of the candidate in the mark sheet of physical eligibility test and some of the candidates declared passed without appearing in the physical eligibility test." After receiving the report submitted by the enquiry committee, the State Government annulled the selection held at 42 centres and passed cancellation order dated 11th September, 2007 by which the selection of 14 recruitment centres was cancelled and by 18th September, 2007, the State Government further cancelled selection of 10 recruitment centers and lastly by order dated 30th September, 2007 selection of 18 recruitment centres has been cancelled. The committee headed by Sri Shailja Kant Mishra in its report mentioned that procedural instructions and rules were not followed and malpractices and forgery were committed by the selection boards. This enquiry committee apart from recommending cancellation of entire selection also recommended for initiation of criminal proceedings against all those who were responsible to pollute the selection process and to start departmental action against the erring officers. The State Government accepted the enquiry report as stated above and also registered criminal cases against the erring officers and departmental proceeding was also initiated against the responsible persons.;