HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) The challenge is made to a recruitment process for the post of Security Guard -Technical and Supervisor Grade 'G' undertaking by the Eastern Coalfield Limited, the respondent no.2 herein, being the subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, the respondent no.1 herein, which is a Government of India undertaking, commenced on the basis of the advertisement/ notice no.1 of 2011 published on 25.06.2011. By the said notice, the applications were invited from Ex -Army/Ex -BSF personnel or NCC B&C Certificate Holder or Sportsman of All India repute for the above post. 215 vacancies were notified in the said notice and the eligibility criteria relating to qualification was indicated as matric or equivalent examination from any recognized Board or examination. The different age limits were also provided for the candidates under the General, O.B.C & SC/ST.
(2.) THE general instructions appended to the said notice require the application to be filled up either in English or in Hindi. A corrigendum was issued by the General Manager (MP & IR) on the last date for submission of the application i.e. 12.07.2011 relaxing the upper age limit for Ex -Army personnel and extending the last date for submission of the application till 14.08.2011. Pursuant to the said advertisement, 16,400 applications were received by the respondent no.2 and 2580 applications were found in order in terms of the eligibility criteria indicated in the said employment notice. For merely one year, no progress could be shown in the said recruitment process until a date was notified for conducting the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) to be conducted between 15th June, 2012 to 27th June, 2012. The lists of 2580 candidates were also published who were found eligible for the said PET. It was further indicated that the male candidates have to run 5 kilometer within 24 minutes and the female candidates have to run 1.6 kilometers within 8.30 minutes. The Physical Efficiency Test could not be conducted on the notified dates and was rescheduled between the period of 25th July, 2012 to 6th August, 2012. The PET could not be conducted because of the extreme hot condition, which may result into a fatal casualty. However, the PET was conducted on the subsequent notified date in which 524 candidates appeared out of which 149 candidates could qualify. It is pertinent to record that on both the occasions, the list of the candidates eligible to participate in the PET was posted on the web site containing 2580 names. It is not in dispute that some of the names which do not figure in the first list, were shown in the second list. Subsequently the respondent no.2 issued a notice dated 28th February, 2013 whereby and whereunder the conditions for running the distance within a specified time was relaxed to a run of 1600 meters within 10 minutes for the male candidates and 400 meters within 3 minutes for the female candidates. The said notice further clarified that the candidates, who could not complete the distance within the specified time on an earlier occasion, shall also be eligible to re -participate. The PET was conducted between 20th March, 2013 to 25th March, 2013 when 406 candidates appeared out of which 392 candidates could be able to qualify. Before proceeding further for the written test and interview, a corrigendum to the said employment notice was issued on 10th May, 2013 by the respondent no.2 by which the candidates having NCC 'A' certificate were called to participate in the said recruitment process and the last date for the submission of the application was fixed on 1st July, 2013. This time, a list of 2546 candidates, who were found eligible for PET, was published on 6th August, 2013. The said test was scheduled to be held from 26th August, 2013 to 31st August, 2013 under the relaxed condition. It is not in dispute that the candidates who successfully run the distance within the notified time under the first condition and the relaxed conditions were allowed to sit in the written examination held on 6th October, 2013. On 6th December, 2013, the respondent no.2 published the 641 names of short listed candidates for interview. This writ petition have been filed on 4th December, 2013 and was moved on 13th December, 2013. Subsequently the matter came up before me on 18th December, 2013 after assignment when Mr. Majumdar, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 was directed to bring the records on 24th December, 2013. This Court, on the returnable day, passed an interim order restraining the respondent authorities from filling up the posts without obtaining leave but permitted to complete the process of interview with clear stipulation that all candidates should be made known that it is subject to the result of the writ petition. The parties have exchanged affidavits. Several applications for addition of party are filed either in support of the writ petition or opposing the same. All those applications were allowed as this Court found that they stand on the same footing and shall be affected by the decision of this writ petition. One of the added respondent filed supplementary affidavit, with the leave of the Court, disclosing that one of the member of the evaluation committee of the recruitment process have asked for the illegal gratification for promise to give employment and annexed the compact disc recording the conversations made in this regard. It is further disclosed that a FIR is lodged with the CBI but no steps have been taken as yet. The learned Advocate appearing for the CBI informed the Court that the actions have been taken and the necessary permission, so required, have not been obtained as yet. Mr. Majumdar also apprise the Court that a letter is issued upon the alleged member of the evaluation committee and the respondent no.2 shall certainly take steps on being satisfied as to the commission of the alleged act.
(3.) THE petitioners have argued that certain favoured candidates have been included in the second list published by the respondent no.2 who do not figure in the first list. It is further submitted that there has been an alteration of the conditions in the middle of the recruitment process with clear motive to favour certain candidates who were otherwise ineligible to participate in the recruitment process in terms of the original advertisement. It is strenuously argued that where a serious allegations relating to unfair means adopted by the selection committee is evident, the selection process is required to be cancelled and/or revoked. Lastly it is submitted that it is a clear case of discrimination as the candidates who were ineligible were allowed to complete with the eligible candidates thereby offending Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the following decisions are cited: (1) Rajkumar and Others; -vs - Shakti Raj and Others; reported in AIR 1997 SC 2110, (2) M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd; Bhopal ­vs - Nanuram Yadav and Ors; reported in (2007) 8 SCC 264. ;