- (1.) BY the Court - BY means of the present petition the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 13.6.2007 issued by the Director General, Police, U.P., whereby an enquiry committee, to be presided over by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and two other Deputy Inspector General of Police as its members, had been constituted to enquire into the irregularities of recruitment of constables for Police/P.A.C./Wireless for 2005-2006. The constitution of the committee was said to be tainted by the inclusion of opposite parties No. 4 and 5 who themselves were said to be involved in the process of recruitment/selection of constables made in the 2005-2006. It has further been assailed on the ground that once alleged irregularities having not been found proved in earlier judicial proceedings wherein same question was involved and this Court upon perusal of entire record pertaining to selection process having opined that there were no such irregularities, there was no occasion to again delve upon the same question According to petitioners the constitution of committee itself was tainted with oblique motives as also the enquiry was to be conducted pursuant thereto at the behest of 3 sitting M.L.As., of the ruling party, one of which was M.L.A. In earls while Government, but did not raise his voice against alleged irregularities.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners since opposite parties No. 4 and 5 were involved in the process of selection, they ought not to have been made members of the committee to enquire into the allegations contained in the complaints. The petitioners' case is that there was no reason for deviating from the settled procedure of getting enquiry conducted by established agency, such as Vigilance Department, C.I.D., or C.B.C.I.D., or Anti-Corruption Department. Thus the said committee was neither constituted under any statute or commission of enquiry or any other statute which required for constitution of a committee to conduct an enquiry. It is also the case of the petitioners that at the initiation of the enquiry there had been a pre-designed strategy to propagate against the recruitment process against the concerned officers with a sole intention to malign them in public life. There has been a systematic and selective leakage of secret and confidential documents. ACCORDING to the petitioners enquiry committee broke open the sealed records in the absence of the Chairman, although they were available. Tampering of record is also alleged in the petition. The recruitment process for constables in Police/P.A.C./Wireless department was initiated in early part of the year 2005 and completed in October 2006. Some of the unsuccessful candidates, who participated in the selection process, approached this Court in writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 2809 (SIS) of 2005 - Harender Singh v. State of U.P. and others) challenging the entire process of selection. This Court vide judgment and order dated 23.8.2005 after perusing the entire record placed before it by the department, dismissed the writ petitions. The said judgment and order was not challenged thereafter and the same became final. Another writ petition was filed by one Udai Singh Yadav (Chest No. 95) v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 34375 of 2006 before the High Court at Allahabad) wherein it was averred that the petitioner had not been awarded marks correctly. The answer books were produced before the Court in sealed cover and it was found that the petitioner had rightly been awarded the marks that he had obtained. Vide order dated 17.7.2006 the said petition was dismissed on payment of Rs. 5, 000/- as cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Services Authority. Another petition was filed by an unsuccessful candidate (writ petition No. 34445 of 2006 -Vinay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) challenging the process of selection on the ground that the marks awarded were not correct. Vide order dated 17.7.2006 the writ petition was dismissed by separate order on payment of Rs. 5, 000/- as cost to Legal Aid Services Authority, yet another writ petition was filed by another set of unsuccessful candidates. They were aggrieved against the alleged malpractices adopted by the authorities in relation to the selection process for the constables in U.P Police. Allegation of arbitrariness, nepotism, favoritism, malpractice and underhand dealing was alleged against the opposite parties. On 27.5.2005 an order was passed by the learned Single Judge staying the entire selection process for the post of Constables in 15 Districts until further orders. It was further provided that if appointment letters had been issued to candidates, they shall not be sent for training and in the event they have been so sent, the same shall be stopped. All the answer sheets in all 15 Districts were directed to be sealed forthwith and if necessary would be produced before the Court, if required. The said order was assailed by the State in Special Appeal (Special Appeal No. 757 of 2005 - State of U.P v. Vinesh Kumar and others). The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 23.6.2005 allowed the Appeal in part and the interim order dated 27.5.2005 was modified to the extent that the candidates be allowed to complete their training, but the order regarding sealing of the entire record in safe-custody and its production before the Court if required was maintained. Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anadi Krishna Sinha, vehemently argued that the order dated 13.6.2007 issued by the opposite party No. 2, as contained in Annexure 1, is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, tainted with oblique motive, and without jurisdiction. According to him the Director General had no authority to constitute a committee vide impugned order dated 13.6.2007 in the absence of any enabling provision in any Act or Rules or even under the Rules of Business. According to him the constitution of the said committee is abolition void and the .consequences flowing thereon could not be deemed to be validated by efflux of time. As per his submission political vendetta writ large in the action of the Government by specifically naming the Minister of Public Works Department who had absolutely no concern whatsoever with the proceedings in the Home Department. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that entire process of selection in Police Department having been found to be perfect and in accordance with the Rules by this Court upon writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates could the same again be scrutinized by constituting a committee for the purpose when the correctness of the selection process received a judicial sanction by judicial pronouncement on the basis of material produced by the opposite parties. He further argued that one of the MLAs (complainants) upon whose complaint, the committee was constituted, was member of the Legislative Assembly of the same party in the earlier Ministry, but no grievance regarding alleged irregularities was made by him at that juncture, but after his Ministry having come into office, the complaint was initiated. According to him the law is well settled that even in passing an administrative order there has to be an enabling provision in a statute without which the order would be nullity.
(3.) IT was also argued that opposite parties No. 4 and 5 being associated with the selection process they could not be members of the Committee under law as a person cannot be allowed to be a judge of his own cause. According to him the said opposite parties ought to have abstained themselves from conducting the enquiry. IT was also asserted that whether enquiry committee constituted under the order dated 13.6.2007 could enquire into the malpractices, favouritism and nepotism when this Court in several writ petitions, upon perusal of record, recorded a categorical finding and opined that there was nothing wrong in the selection process. Learned counsel further argued that whether the enquiry committee could open the record despite specific orders passed by this Court to keep the same in sealed cover and not to open without seeking the consent of this Court. The petitioners have been indicated against whom the enquiry was to be conducted pursuant to the order dated 13.6.2007, however, opposite parties No. 4 and 5 who were also associated with the process of selection, their names have not been included, rather they have been nominated members of the Committee. Learned counsel further submitted that opposite party No. 4 was Inspector General of Police, East Zone at the time of recruitment of P. A.C. Constables and opposite party No. 5 had presided one of the Recruitment Boards of Constables, Civil Police. Opposite Party No. 5 was also responsible for checking and verifying that the recruitment did not suffer from any defect which duty was assigned vide circular dated 2.7.200and issued by the PAC Head Quarters. He was also posted as Inspector General of Police, East Zone, during the recruitment of PAC Constables. During the recruitment of constables each Inspector General of zone was to discharge following functions/duties as per circular dated 2.7.2006 issued from the Office of Additional Director General of Police, PAC Head Quarters: (1) to scrutinize every document of each selected candidate; (2) to ensure that only the eligible candidates have been physically examined; (3) to ensure that there is no error between the mark-sheets of the marks awarded in the copies vis-a- vis the marks copies in the broad sheet; (4) to ensure whether the selection has been made as per the directions issued front time to time vide various Government Orders/Orders in respect of reservation; (5) whether the medical examination etc., has been done in accordance with the Rules properly; and (6) to ensure that no candidate, who is ineligible for the post of Constable, is declared eligible and vice- versa.;