Vikas Jaglan v. Food Corporation of India

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:- “a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the final selection list of the result with regard to advertisement NO. 01/2021-FCI Category-I published in employment news on 27.02.2021 for the selection of AGM (Administration General) and declare it as null and void; W.P.(C) 12694/2021 2 b) to direct the respondents to call him for interview release petitioner's [mal result for his selection as per the merit list of his standing;”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the examination for selection for the post of AGM (General Administration) in Food Corporation of India in pursuance of the the Advertisement No. 01/2021-FCI-cateogry-I. It is stated that the petitioner had received the admit card for the written examination which was conducted on 18.07.2021.

3. The final result was announced on 28.07.2021 and the petitioner is stated to be at Sl. No.2 on the merit list. Though the petitioner secured 157.00 marks out of 180 marks yet the results of the petitioner stated to have been withheld in accordance with the Recruitment Notification. Consequently, the petitioner was not called for the interview.

4. The petitioner had filed the RTI application on 13.10.2021 and when there was no reply thereto, subsequent representation were filed on 20.10.2021 by way of email. By way of RTI reply dated 08.11.2021, the respondent/Corporation had informed that since the petitioner had employed unfair means on the basis of the report issued by Institute of Banking Personnel Selection in terms of Clause No. 39, the results were withheld. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner scoring 157 marks and shown at merit list no.2, yet, the petitioner was not called for the interview and the respondent/ Corporation whimsically and arbitrarily denied the petitioner the opportunity to be considered for the post of AGM. W.P.(C) 12694/2021 3

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation categorically submits that the results of the petitioner as also the other candidates were withheld since there was a suspicion of unfair means having been used. On such suspicion, the results were sent to the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection which after employing the software and other means as also after examining the rough sheets of the petitioner which was completely blank, came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not have answered 42 correct questions out of 45 questions which the petitioner attempted. On this issue, learned counsel invites attention of this Court to annexure R-4 which is at page 33 of the counter affidavit to submit that the analysis conducted by the Expert Body, was not without reasons. He submits that according to the expert body, the questions which were put to the candidates, did require working on rough sheets and could not have been answered correctly, without attempting or trying to work out the result in the rough sheets. On that basis, learned counsel submits that withholding of the results cannot be faulted with by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also submits that since the recruitment is of the period October –November, 2021, the said process having been completed, nothing even otherwise would survive for adjudication in the present petition.

8. Be that as it may.

9. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perused the documents on record.

10. The arguments of learned counsel appearing for the respondent/corporation do appear attractive at the first blush, however, W.P.(C) 12694/2021 4 cannot be tenable for two reasons. One, that there is no yardstick by which the mental faculty or an ability of a person can adjudged on the basis of a person using or not using the particular rough sheets for answering the mathematical questions. The other being that assuming that the respondent is correct in their analysis, no show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to how he has secured the said marks despite not using the rough sheet who issued to the petitioner. An opportunity to show cause ought to have been granted by the respondent/Corporation. This is for the reason that the petitioner was a successful candidate securing 157 marks and figuring at serial number 2 in the merit list. The minimum that the respondent could and ought to have done in such circumstances was to give him a fair opportunity for answering the objections, before cancelling the candidature or before or after withholding the results.

11. It is apparent from the record, that belatedly, after the petitioner had submitted his RTI applications, the respondent/Corporation reacted by way of the letter dated 08.11.2021. Even thereafter, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents had, in fact, issued any show cause notice to the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent/corporation at this stage, submits on instructions, that the petitioner shall be granted to an opportunity to show cause by the respondent/Corporation regarding the objections and the withholding of the results, is not permissible. Accordingly, the respondent-corporation shall give a show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks from today which shall be replied to by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. W.P.(C) 12694/2021 5

13. The respondent/Corporation shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The date, time and venue of such hearing shall be communicated to the petitioner in advance.

14. Subsequent thereto, it is directed that the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. Copy thereof be furnished to the petitioner within one week.

15. In view of above, the writ petition along with pending application stands disposed with no order as to costs.