- (1.) The unsuccessful Appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent impugning the judgment dated 14.3.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once vigilance enquiry is pending against the Appellant then he cannot be granted no objection certificate and his application cannot be forwarded for consideration of his name for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager which is to be filled by direct recruitment. The short question which has been raised in the instant appeal is whether the pendency of regular vigilance/ departmental enquiry would be a bar for consideration of the name of a delinquent employee for appointment on a post by way of direct recruitment. Could it be laid down that the condition obliging the employer to sign the no objection certificate is against Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant has been working as Assistant General Manager in the Food Corporation of India (for brevity 'the Corporation'). For filling the post of Deputy General Manager an advertisement dated 8.1.2011 has been issued by the Corporation inviting applications for direct recruitment for inservice candidates, like the Appellant. The application forms require them to obtain certificate from the former employer certifying that there was no vigilance case pending against the applicant besides the grant of no objection certificate. The Appellant filed a petition with a prayer for quashing the condition. The aforesaid condition is incorporated in the application form (P.2). The Appellant filled up the application form and also tendered requisite fee. He forwarded the same to the Executive Director to issue no objection certificate and grant him a declaration that no vigilance enquiry was pending. The Respondents decided to withhold the application of the Appellant because a vigilance enquiry is pending. The learned Single Judge rejected the argument that requirement of submission of no objection certificate would be unjust and unfair by observing as under: Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this condition would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Petitioner is being denied equal opportunity of consideration for appointment. It is not understood as to how this requirement of obtaining no objection or intimation regarding pending vigilance enquiry would be unfair and unreasonable in any manner. The Petitioner is in the service of FCI and is facing vigilance enquiry. He even cannot be held eligible for promotion due to pendency of enquiry. Would it then be fair to allow him to seek direct appointment on a higher post while his conduct is under a clout. Purity of administration would require that a person facing vigilance enquiry is not permitted to advance in service till he clears his name. It is an accepted norm for serving employees to seek another appointment after obtaining no objection from the department where they are serving. Once a person is facing a disciplinary enquiry while serving in the same department, he certainly cannot seek to be equated with other person applying for the post. It is well understood that in all organizations inservice candidates have to submit their application forms through proper channel. Getting no objection in such like cases is meant for ensuring that a person making application is free from any infirmity, which may affect his right to seek appointment. Certainly, a person may not be able to seek consideration for appointment, if he is involved in a serious case of misconduct....
(3.) Mr. Gunjan Mehta, learned Counsel for the Appellant has repeated the same submissions before this Court which he had urged before the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Counsel the Appellant may suffer great prejudice if he is exonerated in the vigilance enquiry which is still under process. According to the learned Counsel he is entitled to be considered at this stage.;