Karmveer Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

1. The 88 petitioners are all aggrieved by the Notification dated 8'^ November 2016 issued by the Respondents whereby the recruitment to the post ofHead Constable (Telecom) 2014 in ITBP has been cancelled. The petitioners seek a direction to the Respondents to issue them appointment letters in accordance with their position in the result as declared vide notification dated 15'^ December2015 with all consequential benefits.

2. On 23''^ January 2018, this Court noted that: "Learned ASG appears on behalf of the respondents and hands over the two original files for our perusal, both bearing No.F.No. P2/DIR (AIR)/ITBP/Misc./2016 C.F. No.3358199, to explain the circumstances in which the first exam conducted by the respondent/ITBP for filling up vacancies of Head Constable (Telecom) in the ITBP was cancelled on 11.09.2015 and the second exam conducted on 11.10.2015, was cancelled on 08.11.2016 after conducting a sample examination on 25.09.2016. He states that recently on 19.1.2018, the respondent/ITBP has filed acomplaint in respect ofthe illegalities noticed in the second examination, with P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi." > This Court on the same date asked the Respondents as to how it proposed to fill up the 299 vacancies and to constitute aCommittee to consider how the ITRBP proposed to deal with those candidates who had participated in the examination and had become overage by then.

3. On 13'^ February 2018, this Court passed the following order: "On 23.01.2018, we had enquired fi:om the learned ASG as to the steps proposed to be taken by the ITBP to fill up the vacancies, to the W.P.(C) 11233/2016 and connected matters ^ ^ post of Head Constable (Telecom); which were to the tune of299 in September, 2014 and it has to be assumed that the saidnumber would be much larger by now.

2. Learned ASG states that a meeting has yet to be convened but comments have been sought by the Ministry of Home Affairs from' the Department of Personnel & Training, for considering the aspect recorded in the order dated 23.01.2018. He submits that the comments from the DOPT are expected shortly.

3. Learned ASG is directed to obtain clear instructions, in terms of the order dated 23.01.2018, well before the next date of hearing. The relevant records shall be kept handy for our perusal, on the next date ofhearing."

4. The Respondents have today produced before the Court in a sealed cover the "Report on Acts of Omission by ITBP and to identify on whom the responsibility lies [Head Constable (Telecom)-2014]", The Court has also beenshown the notes on file of the Ministry of Home Affairs which contains the decision of the Home Minister approving the proposal to proceed with converting the complaint already lodged bytheITBP into anFIR.

5. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the Petitioners, pointed out that an FIR that was lodged,in Haldwani following the exam held on 29^^ March,

2015. That exam was cancelled and another exam was held on ll'^ October

2015. The Petitioners qualified in both written exams and the intemal reports ofthe ITBP confirmed that there was no foul play. According to him, the subsequent inquiry does not pertain to the second examination but to the first. Itshould not affect the prospects ofthe Petitioners and others who have qualifiedin written exam held on 11'^ October 2015 from being appointed to W.P.(C) 11233/2016 and connected matters Page 5of[6] \ the post ofHead Constable (Telecommunication).

6. Haying perused the report submitted to the Court in a sealed cover, it is plain to the Court that the scope of the inquiry was not limited to only strengthening the measures in the future but also to fixing the responsibility I on officials of ITBP in respect of both the examinations conducted by them on 29"^ March 2015 and 11^*^ October 2015. It is plain that the MHA is not happy with the results of the second written examination as well. Also, it is the view of the MHA that the internal enquiries held by the ITBP declaring that there was no foul play, even after the second exam, was not acceptable and that there has to be a proper criminal investigation which would unearth the truth and hold accountable those within the ITBP responsible for the lapse.

7. In these circumstances, it is not possible to entertain the prayers in these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications are also dismissed.