ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Vide order dated 17.05.2017, this court issued the following directions:- (a) That all petitioners shall appear before Secretary, Staff Selection Commission and they shall submit comprehensive detailed representation giving details of the candidates who being less meritorious have been appointed. (b) That the petitioners in the representation to be filed shall be at liberty to demolish the arguments raised by the respondents that less meritorious persons because of belonging to border area or of being more in age or for any other reasons have been given appointment, (c) The petitioners shall also be entitled to raise arguments that wrongly candidates from the State of Rajasthan were diverted to other States even they were less meritorious or qua meritorious persons route of diversion to the other state was followed. Petitioners shall be also at liberty to ventilate any other grievance they have regarding the recruitment process undertaken by Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, shall hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations levelled against the officials who at the relevant time were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. (d) Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, before decision of the representation shall publish a list of all candidates who appeared in the State of Rajasthan for the recruitment to the post of Constable(General Duty) in paramilitary forces in pursuance to impugned advertisement qua all the categories be it General, OBC, SC or ST. In the list so published marks secured by each candidate shall be depicted along with cut off marks, of the category to which candidate belong. (e) In the list, so published, in pursuance of above directions the reasons shall be assigned as to why a particular candidate has been appointed even though he has secured less marks. (f) After publication of the list Secretary, Staff Selection Commission shall afford hearing to the petitioners and shall pass a detailed reasoned speaking order within one month after the conclusion of the hearing.
(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner filed a representation. Vide order dated 16.02.2018, the Secretary-cum-COE of the Staff Selection Commission has rejected it by the detailed order.
(3.) Mr. R.B. Sharma counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation has been mechanically addressed and rejected without due application of mind. He submitted that spirit of the court's order dated 17.05.2017 was to ensure that there was no discrimination vis-a-vis the other appointments to the post of Constable (GD) with the Para Military Forces pursuant to the advertisement in issue. He submitted that has been ensured inasmuch as candidates belonging to the OBC category, to which the petitioner belongs, having lesser marks than the petitioner in the examination have been appointed. It was submitted that this fact by itself indicates that there has been bungling in the appointments to the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011. The rejection of the petitioner's representation mechanically despite the court's order on 17.05.2017 to consider it fairly to ensure non-discrimination constitutes contempt. For which the respondents be punished.;