[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Chhathu Ram And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 22 July, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3997 of 2017
======================================================
1. Chhathu Ram and Ors Son of Shri Laldev Ram Resident of Village- Sawari
Boxi Jee, Police Station-Jalalpur, District- SaranChapra.
2. Upender Yadav Son of Shri Chandrika Yadav Resident ofVillage- Siswa
Bujurg, P.O. and Police Station- Daudpur, District- SaranChapra.
3. Chandan Kumar Son of Shri Rameshwarn Prasad Resident of Village-
Banwar, P.O.-Soniya, Police Station- Daudpur, District- SaranChapra.
4. Raju Kumar Singh Son of Shri Brij Kishor Singh Resident of VillageP.O.
Bangra, District- SaranChapra.
5. Kalika Yadav Son of Shri Shivjee Yadav Resident of Village- Deoria, P.O.
Hasulahi, Police Station- Kopa, District- SaranChapra.
6. Dharmendar Kumar Son of Shri Tribhwan Bhagat Resident of VillageP.O.-
Kandhpaker, Police Station- Asaon, District- Siwan
7. Mintu Kumar Ram Son of Shri Ramesh Ram Resident of Village-
Kukurbhuka, P.O. Done, Police Station- Darauli, District- Siwan.
8. Mithlesh Kumar Son of Pradeep Ray Resident of Village- Rampur Ami,
P.O.- Ami, Police Station- Dighwara, District- SaranChapra.
9. Kaushal Kumar Son of Shri Upender Thakur Resident of Village P.O.
Lakmanpur, Police Station- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur.
10. Bikesh Kumar Prasad Son of Shri Chandrama Prasad Mahto Resident of
Village- Pandeypur, P.O. Chanchoura, Police Station- Daraundak, District-
Siwan.
11. Ravindra Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Ram Bachan Sharma Resident of
Village- Dumaigarh, P.O. Dumaigarh, Police Station- Manjhi, District-
SaranChapra.
12. Manmohan Gautam Son of Shri Ramesh Singh C/o Subedar Singh, Resident
of Village- Dariyaur, P.O. Baraun, Police Station- Sonpur, District-
SaranChapra.
13. Dipul Kumar Ray Son of Shri Yugeshwar Ray Resident of Village- Kasba
Maker Tola Chakiya, P.O. and Police Station- Maker, District- SaranChapra.
14. Amit Kumar Manjhi Son of Shri Subas Manjhi Resident of Village
P.O.Pachrukhi, Via- Aphar, Police Station- Bheldi, District- SaranChapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt.
of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General, Border Security Force, North Bengal, frontier H.Q.
BSF North Bengal, P.O. Kadamtala, Siliguri, District- Darjeeling (West
Bengal).
4. The Assistant Commandant Ministry, Border Security Force, North Bengal,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
2/9
frontier H.Q. BSF North Bengal, P.O. Kadamtala, Siliguri, District-
Darjeeling (West Bengal).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) That, this application is
being filed for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ or writs for quashing the order dated
04.01.2017
and 13.01.2017 respectively
contained in letter no.64, 62, 124, 66, 69,
197, 206, 86, 198, 58, 87, 73, 466 and 463
vide which the respondent no.4 has
communicated for cancellation of
recruitment process for the post of Constable
(Trade men) in Border Security Force 2016
against which the petitioners applied and
participated in different test.
(ii) Further for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or writs directing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
3/9
respondents for taking step to conclude the
recruitment process in accordance with law
for the post of Constable (Trade men) in
Border Security Force for which the
petitioners have applied under vacancy for
Constable (Trade men) in Border Security
Force, 2016.
(iii) For passing such other
order or orders for which the petitioners will
be found entitled in the eye of law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
561 vacancies were published on the website, inviting suitable
candidates for recruitment, with the last date for application
being 20.04.2016, for various posts in the Border Security
Force. He further submits that the petitioners participated in the
said selection process and was issued an admit card. Counsel
further submits that in the recruitment process, the petitioners
was selected for their respective post after successfully clearing
the written test and physical test, and also appeared for the
medical test. Counsel further submits that the petitioners were
waiting for the publication of the final result and the issuance of
the call letter for recruitment, however, all of a sudden, the
concerned authority issued letters dated 04.01.2017 and
13.01.2017, as contained in Annexure-1, informing that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
4/9
entire recruitment process had been cancelled due to the
discovery of certain illegalities in the process. Therefore, the
petitioners moved before this Hon’ble Court.
4. Counsel further submits that the said recruitment
process has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No. 1895
of 2017 (Pal Vikram Rameshbhai & 2 other(s) v. Chairman –
Recruitment Board & 2 other(s)), as well as before the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 1322 of 2017 (Mridul Ray
and Others v. The Union of India & Others). Counsel further
submits that, in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble
High Courts, the present application may be disposed of.
Counsel also submits that the same relief may be granted to the
petitioners as was granted to the petitioners in those writ
petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits
that a counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Inspector
General/PSO, Border Security Force, wherein a specific stand
has been taken that information regarding
malpractice/irregularities came to the notice of HQ DG BSF.
Thereafter, the role of all the Recruitment Agencies was
scrutinized, and upon such scrutiny, all the Recruitment
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
5/9
Agencies were directed by the competent authority to terminate
the entire recruitment process with immediate effect due to the
said malpractice/irregularities. The Recruitment Agencies were
also directed to stop further action in the recruitment process for
the post of Constable (Tradesmen) and to issue letters to the
candidates who were found eligible in the Detailed Medical
Examination. It has been further intimated that all the
candidates, including the petitioners, were informed by Frontier
HQ BSF, North Bengal, about the termination of the entire
recruitment process for 561 posts due to the
irregularities/malpractice found therein.
6. In light of the submissions made above, it
transpires to this Court that the Border Security Force at whose
instance the recruitment process was initiated itself conducted
an inquiry and found that malpractice/irregularities had been
committed in the selection process. It is solely for this reason,
the recruitment process was “terminated simplicitor”, without
any specific allegation being made against anyone, particularly
against the candidates.
7. Therefore, for this reason that the recruitment is
“terminated simplicitor” this Court is not inclined to interfere
in the present writ petition. However, since the Hon’ble High
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
6/9
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has been pleased to observe in
the case of Pal Vikram Rameshbhai & 2 other(s) v. Chairman –
Recruitment Board & 2 other(s) (R/Special Civil Application
No. 1895 of 2017), wherein paragraphs 26, 27, and 28 are
particularly relevant, which state as follows:–
26. In the opinion of the Court,
ratio of the Court in these judgments, would
not apply to the facts of the present case, as
the facts of the present case as discussed
above, would not require any direction for
undertaking process of segregating case of
tainted candidates from non- tainted
candidates.
27. In view of the aforesaid
reasoning, the Court is not inclined to
interfere in exercise of Art. 226 of the
Constitution of India. No case is made out to
issue any direction to the respondents to
issue any direction to consider the case of
the petitioner for appointment. However, the
Court deems it fit to observe that
considering the young age of the only
petitioner left out and the fact that to the
extent that inquiry by the BSF and the
investigation by the CBI, which has
progressed till date, does not indicate any
illegality in the Centre, where the petitioner
appeared. The Court leaves it open for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
7/9petitioner to make the Representation to the
respondent – BSF to treat the case of the
petitioner in special facts and circumstances
and if any vacancies still available, then
consider the case of the petitioner in
accordance with the law and communicate
the outcome to the petitioner at the earliest.
28. In view of the aforesaid, the
petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
8. The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has also been
pleased to observe in the case of Mridul Ray and Others v. The
Union of India & Others (WP(C) No. 1322 of 2017), wherein
paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are particularly relevant, which
state as follows:–
8. We also take note of that the
cancellation of the selection process had
been assailed in different High Courts
inasmuch as, the whole process was an all
India level selection. Writ petitions assailing
the selection process was dismissed by the
Calcutta High Court as well as by the
Gujarat High Court and in the decision
rendered by the Gujarat High Court, it was
taken note of that the irregularities had
taken place through the agency M/s C.S.
Datamation, New Delhi through whom the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
8/9written examination was conducted.
9. In view of the aforesaid
materials that had been produced on record,
we are of the view that no arbitrariness or
unreasonableness can be noticed in the act
of the respondents in cancelling the entire
selection process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 21.05.2016.
10. In the circumstances, we are
unable to find any merit in the writ petition
requiring an interference with the decision of
the respondents to cancel the selection
process. But, however, as submitted by Mr. A
Mobaraque, learned counsel for the
petitioners and as provided by the Gujarat
High Court in its judgment dated 18.07.2022
in Pal Vikram Rameshbhai and two others
-vs- Chairman, Recruitment Board and two
others, in R/Special Civil Application No.
1895/2017, the petitioners are also given the
liberty to file individual applications before
the respondent No. 4, if so advised and upon
such applications, necessary orders thereon
may be passed.
11. The writ petition is
dismissed subject to the liberty to file the
aforesaid representations, if advised.
12. Let a copy of the judgment
of the High Court of Gujarat dated
18.07.2022 be kept on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3997 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025
9/9
9. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgments, this
Court is of the view that equal treatment should be extended to
the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to file individual
applications before the Assistant Commandant, Ministry, Border
Security Force, North Bengal, Frontier HQ BSF North Bengal
(Respondent No. 4) within 30 days from today. Respondent No.
4 shall thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order.
11. It is made clear that I.A. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8 of 2025 have not been pressed and are therefore dismissed
as not pressed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NA CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.07.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_2]
Source link