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



Rinku Rani v/s Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD [Active] CIN = U74140DL1992PLC048211

Company & Directors' Information:- E N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92132DL2005PTC143469

Company & Directors' Information:- T C COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105354

Company & Directors' Information:- J J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300WB1997PTC085828

Company & Directors' Information:- S M INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26942ML1998PLC005541

Company & Directors' Information:- P. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92141DL1984PTC017748

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- T I COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109HP2009PTC031079

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64201WB2010PTC145582

Company & Directors' Information:- P N COMMUNICATION P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U32204DL2001PTC111327

Company & Directors' Information:- A B AND U COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH1997PTC107160

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31909GJ1989PTC012512

Company & Directors' Information:- C H C INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200WB2001PLC093126

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND D COMMUNICATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120GJ1997PLC031879

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC128632

Company & Directors' Information:- K. K. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200OR2009PTC011100

Company & Directors' Information:- P & G COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2013PTC251505

Company & Directors' Information:- P J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC105416

Company & Directors' Information:- S A I S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100TN2010PTC075284

Company & Directors' Information:- M K COMMUNICATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72900HP2006PTC030292

Company & Directors' Information:- H V COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52602DL2009PTC193309

Company & Directors' Information:- S H INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC135610

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92132DL2001PTC110975

Company & Directors' Information:- B. M. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64100DL2012PTC244419

Company & Directors' Information:- H. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64100DL2013PTC255831

Company & Directors' Information:- B R COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64203DL2002PTC114477

Company & Directors' Information:- N S N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64100KA2014PTC073757

Company & Directors' Information:- N A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC182901

Company & Directors' Information:- G & D COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64200MP2007PTC019633

    OA. No. 060/00046 of 2017

    Decided On, 09 May 2018

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicant: Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A).

1. Applicant, Ms. Rinku Rani daughter of Sh. Mahavir Singh has filed the instant Original Application (O.A.), seeking direction to be given to the respondents to give appointment letter to her on the post of Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) in village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar from due date alongwith all consequential benefits. She further seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the official, who raised illegal demands of extraneous consideration from her.

2. The brief facts, which are relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the instant O.A. are that the respondent no. 3 issued an advertisement dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure A-1), for filling up of post of GDS BPM in village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The applicant applied for the same alongwith requisite certificates. The scrutiny committee selected the applicant as qualified and suitable candidate for the said post vide letter dated 25.5.2016 (Annexure A-2). The applicant appeared before respondent no. 3 alongwith required certificates for verification on 21.7.2016. The respondent no. 3 issued another letter to the applicant requiring her to be present before the office for medical formalities alongwith age proof vide letter dated 21.7.2016 (Annexure A-3). The applicant appeared before the official and submitted her age proof and medical form to the respondent no. 3. Applicant is aggrieved that after completion of all the formalities, she was not issued appointment letter, therefore, she approached the respondent no. 3 and made complaint in that regard. Respondent no. 3 issued letter on 25.11.2016 (Annexure A6), whereby it was intimated that the selection process for the recruitment of GDS BPM Sultanpur has been ordered to be withheld and which was eventually cancelled. Hence the instant O.A. with a prayer indicated above.

3. Respondents have filed written statement and stated therein that the applicant was neither issued appointment letter nor the amount of security i.e. compulsory condition for appointment as per notification (Annexure A-1) was got credited nor any prescribed training was imparted to the applicant. It is stated that the appointing authority had tempered the record of recruitment, hence the whole recruitment process is vitiated, therefore the recruitment was cancelled, as such the claim of applicant is inadmissible.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, and peruse the pleadings available on record with their valuable assistance.

5. The principal argument placed before us by the applicant is that he, in good faith, participated in the process of selection and was declared successful and even though ultimately letter of appointment was not issued to him, the very fact that he was selected through a defined process, gives him a right to be appointed to the said post. He further contends that the complaint, which was the basis for conducting the inquiry into process of selection, did not involve the post for which he had applied namely GDS BPM in village Sultanpur and therefore, it was unfair on the part of respondents to annul the process of selection for several posts including that of Sultanpur.

6. We do not find much force in the arguments advanced by the applicant. First of all, it is not necessary that if a complaint is made of such nature, the inquiry be restricted to the specific incidence to which the complaint relates. If in the judgment of authorities, there is a suspicion that the process of selection has been compromised, they are fully within their rights to cancel the whole process of selection. Therefore, the argument of the applicant that the respondents could not have canceled the selection for Sultanpur village, cannot be accepted.

7. As regards the right, that the applicant claims, he has acquired because he has succeeded in the selection process, our view is that the same is not legally tenable. The selection process does not confer any right to the applicant in every circumstance. First of all in our view, in this case no explicit right is created. The question is whether any implied rights are created at all? If the process of selection is cancelled, but some other candidate is given appointment, such a situation, does create a situation of implied rights having occurred to the applicant. Or if contrary to selection, a person who has been placed with lesser marks has been given appointment, that also does culminate in a situation of the successful candidate having acquired clear right. We could enumerate some more situations where such a right could be deemed to have been created in such cases. However, here none of such situations obtain. Here, it is a clear and unambiguous case of selection process having become vitiated because of a malpractice, resulting in the whole process of selection being annulled.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

It is not the case of the applicant that somebody else has been given appointment on the post for which the applicant was also an aspirant. Therefore, in our view, no right explicit or implied is created in favour of the applicant. 8. Given the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the applicant cannot claim that he be appointed on the post of GDS BPM, village Sultanpur. His arguments are devoid of force and his case is bereft of merit. Accordingly, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
O R