w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Pranab Kumar Basu v/s Executive Director Alloy Steel Plant


Company & Directors' Information:- R P K ALLOY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104TN1989PTC016867

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28111UP1995PTC018405

Company & Directors' Information:- EXECUTIVE STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2011PTC218115

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL PLANT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1959PTC011311

Company & Directors' Information:- J D ALLOY STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27106CH1981PTC004509

Company & Directors' Information:- B D K ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U27106KA1973PTC002355

    C. 0. No. 12402 (W) of 1983

    Decided On, 24 December 1985

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. MOOKHERJEE

    For the Appearing Parties: Pratap Roy, S.K. Datta, S. Soma, Advocates.



Judgment Text

S.K. MOOKHERJEE, J.


(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


(4) IN reply, the petitioner tried to meet the a1legation over the vigilance enquiry against him by pleading that this was not a punishment in accordance with Discipline and Appeal Rules and, as such, could not operate as a bar to his eligibility for the post of Chief Additional. Vigilance Officer a vigilance clearance was required only after interview the petitioner also tried to assail the propriety of the "recordable warning", administered to him.


(5) IN my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the basis of the present writ, application inasmuch as, in refusing grant of. interview to the petitioner on the basis of unfavourable recommendation of the vigilance department, the respondents cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily malafide or in any illegal manner It remains uncontroverted that all the candidates, including the petitioner, had been screened " before the interview was granted and vigilance reports were called for with regard to each of them. If the employer, upon consideration of the sensitive nature of the post of Chief Additional Vigilance Officer, decides to screen the applications of different candidates, otherwise eligible, before interview on the basis of their vigilance records, it cannot be blamed as being malafide or capricious. I do not find any substance in the petitioner's contention that screening by the vigilance was needed only after a particular candidate was selected on the basis of the interview the provisions of the Establishment Manual also, in my view, do not have application to the disputed appointment. The petitioner, while challenging the action of the respondent in refusing interview to him, cannot be allowed to challenge the propriety of the warning, administered against him. The petitioner has failed to make out any case either showing arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, or any malafide on their part. The procedure, followed by the responde

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nts in screening different applications before interview, cannot be said to be illegal. Principles laid down in the case of Dr. Aurobinda Ray reported in All India Service Law Journal 1984 Page 30 1, do not have any application to the present case as the said case is distinguishable on facts and clearly shows discrimination ex facie. In the circumstances, the application for writ is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
O R