- (1.) THIS writ application, which was heard as a contested application, upon notice to the interested parties, raises the question as to whether the petitioner could be refused an interview for selection for the post of Additional Chief Vigilance Officer in the grade 'e-4' of Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur. Assailing such refusal, the petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant him such interview as also for a writ of Certiorari for quashing the decision of the Selection Committee) on the basis of the interview, held on 10th September, 1983, for the said purpose.
(2.) THE petitioner's case, inter alia, is that at the relevant time he was working as Deputy Manager (Inspection) applications were invited for selection to the post of Additional Chief Vigilance Officer on a tenure basis for 'a period of 3 to 5 years, the petitioner had the requisite qualifications for eligibility for an interview that the authorities illegally, arbitrarily, malafide and, in a discriminatory manner, violating the protection, guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, did not issue any interview letter to the petitioner and held the interview on 10th September, 1983, with the result that the petitioner's candidature could not be considered the authorities wanted to put a man of their own choice.
(3.) IN several affidavits- in- opposition, the respondents contended that the post of Chief Additional Vigilance Officer was a selection post and, in the matter of recruitment for such post, special integrity report was required in addition to the normal vigilance clearance the post being very sensitive one, only officers of unquestionable integrity could be considered the normal method of merit cum seniority for promotion as applicable to either cases of appointment to Executive posts was not applicable in the matter of selection for the disputed post that, prior to selection, the applications received from the candidates had to be screened in a very selective manner oven for interview and only candidates, who had an unblemished record as per recommendation of the vigilance department, were called for interview the petitioner in connect i on with a vigilance case was given a recordable warning as the misconduct in the performance of- official duty had shown lack of Integrity there was no arbitrariness, malafide or illegality in the action of the appointing or selecting authorities;