2020 (5) TMI 419 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment to the Group 'C' post of Greaser in the Customs Marine Wing falling within the jurisdiction of the Customs Gujarat Zone in pursuance of the Recruitment Notification dated 11.09.2017 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents and that his name was not reflected in the list of successful candidates declared on 26.02.2018. Considering the fact that the petitioner has chosen to approach this court after a period of more than two years, without issuing any notice to the other side, we permit the petitioner to approach the respondents with a request to disclose the outcome of the vigilance inquiry undertaken by the respondents in which the petitioner had also participated either by filing an application under the Right to Information Act or by filing a fresh representation as the case may be - On such application / representation being made, the respondents shall furnish necessary reply to the petitioner in respect of the vigilance inquiry undertaken by the respondents within FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of such application or representation from the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petitioner's appointment to Group 'C' post of Greaser in Customs Marine Wing.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction for his appointment to the Group 'C' post of Greaser in the Customs Marine Wing under the Customs Gujarat Zone. The recruitment process involved a written examination and a Swimming Test, which the petitioner cleared. However, after the results were declared, his name was not included in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner alleged that despite making representations and seeking information under the Right to Information Act, he was not informed about the outcome of the vigilance inquiry in which he had participated.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner had actively participated in the recruitment process and that his name was missing from the list of successful candidates. The petitioner's advocate argued that even though the petitioner's case was under consideration by the Vigilance Cell, he was not informed about his candidature for the post, despite clearing both examinations. The court noted the lack of response from the respondents to the petitioner's representations and the absence of communication regarding the vigilance inquiry results.

Given the circumstances and the petitioner's delay in approaching the court without notifying the other party, the court allowed the petitioner to request the respondents to disclose the outcome of the vigilance inquiry. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file an application under the Right to Information Act or submit a fresh representation seeking information about the vigilance inquiry results. The respondents were directed to provide a necessary reply within the specified time frame. The petitioner was also granted the liberty to take legal action based on the response received. Importantly, the court clarified that this order did not delve into the merits of the case, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.