- (1.) N. K. Mitra, C. J. These are the six Special Appeals arising out of the judgment and order dated April 8, 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 39772 of 1996 and five other connected writ petitions quashed the other dated 21 -10-1996 and advertise ment dated 25-10-1996 impugned in the writ petitions and directed the appellants herein to declare the result of the selection held for recruitment of Constables in Rail way Protection Force over Eastern Rail way pursuant to advertisement No. SC- 30/65/5-E (Rect.)-1995 dated 23-4-1995 within a period of two months from the date of judgment.
(2.) BY impugned order dated 21-10-1996 impugned in the writ petitions the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway-Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Cal cutta had cancelled the selections process held in pursuant to advertisement dated 23-11-1995. The impugned advertisement was issued on 25-10-1996 for holding recruitment afresh. The order dated 21-10-1996 and advertisement dated 26-10-1995 were sought to be quashed, inter alia on the grounds that the process of selec tion was cancelled on extraneous con siderations and in colourable exercise of power. The order of cancellation, it was submitted by the petitioners, was passed without holding any enquiry whatsoever to ascertain to the truth of the allegations made in the complaint and sans material to substantiate the alleged complaints regarding the selection being vitiated on the grounds of corruption and nepotism. As regards the consequential advertise ment dated 26-10-1996 it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that stat-wise reser vations made therein and the require ments mentioned therein that the can didates must have passed their matricula tion from the three States, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal and that they must also be domicile of these States were volatile of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India. The earlier advertisement it was submitted by the writ petitioners did not limit the filed of eligibility to the above three States. Though several points were urged before the learned Single Judge but the writ petitions came to be allowed only on the ground that the order of cancella tion dated 26-10-1996 was passed without any basis in that there was no iota of evidence on record to show that the com petent authority had ever investigated the truth of the complaints made against the recruitment process. We have heard Shri U. N. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appel lants and Shri VB. Singh learned Counsel representing the respondents. We have also perused the affidavits filed in the writ petition as well as original record produced by Shri U. N. Sharma. Shri U. N. Sharma submitted that the Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, New Delhi was satisfied on the basis of personal enquires from various sources that the selection was not fair and was rather vitiated due to serious irregularities and malpractices, and the learned Single Judge erred in in terfering with the subjective opinion so formed by the Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi. Sri VB. Singh submitted in support of the judgment under challenge that there was no material on record to enable the Director General to form an opinion on that malpractice or cor rupt means were adopted at the written test or at any stage of the selection process and the opinion formed by the Director General was unsustainable.
(3.) A perusal of the original record produced by Shri U. N. Sharma during the course of hearing would show that the main allegations made in the complaints including the complaint contained in let ter dated 1-3-1996 of one Shri Syed Mat-loonb Hashmi, Member, ZRUCC, East ern Railway addressed to the Prime Mini ster of India and Railway Minister are four folds :- (A) Collection of money ranging from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 70,000 from can didates through RPF personnel allegedly working as brokers and sub- brokers with the consent of the Chairman/members of the Recruitment Committee, on behalf of the then Chief Security Commissioner, Eastern Railway with an assurance to decure them job. (B) distribution of similar ball pens amongst all such can didates who had paid money and appeared in the written test at Dhanbad (Bihar) with instructions not to answer objective type question so as to enable the examiner to answer these objective questions by making appropriate tick mark afterwards; (C) some candidates who were to appear in the test at Lilaugh Centre were declared unfit due to their failure to pay the requisi te amount ; and (D) extra facilities privileges were given to the candidates belonging to the community of Chief Security Commissioner as per the instruc tions of the letter. The record further reveals, vide office note, dated 8-2-1995 as made on Security (E) File No. 93-Sec. (E)/ac-3/56/er, the S/sri Ratan Roy, Hemant Mandal, Prasante Halder, Sanu Sen and Sures Pal had complained to the President of India that the recruitment committee headed by Shri P. S. Rawal constituted for recruitment of Constables, Railway Protection Force for Eastern Railway was adopting illegal procedure for rejecting the genuine candidates and the candidates were being charged Rs. 35,000 to 50,0000 for recruitment. The note also refers to the complaint of Shri A. K. Seth of Hirapur, Dhanbad that the recruitment committee had engaged touts to collect Rs. 50,000 to 60,000 per candidate for recruitment and it was in this perspective that the Inspector General/hqr had remarked that "we may ask comments of CSS/e. Rly with an advise to check any malpractice during Recruit ment" and the complaints were according ly sent to Chief Security Commissioner, Eastern Railway for this comments. All the complaint, it appears, were submitted to the Director General with a suggestion "to refer the case to Advisor (Vig.) for the depth enquiry and to unearth truth. ";