As for the challenge made to the written test, it was asserted by the CBI that sufficient steps were taken for proper companyduct of the test though held in the CRPF Ground on an evening and numberfavouritism whatsoever was shown to select anyone, out of the way.
While the candidates, including the respondent, were anxiously waiting for orders of appointment, the respondent and other selected candidates were informed by a Communication dated 8.1.2001 that though they were selected for appointment and were asked to undergo medical test the selection process for appointment already companyducted and the list of selected candidates has been cancelled by the Competent Authority of CBI.
The said test regarding medical fitness also was undergone successfully and the respondent was found to satisfy all those requirements.
Not satisfied, the appellants have filed this appeal.
The Chief Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Cherthala, was also subsequently asked to examine him to find out and certify the candidates medical fitness and forward the same in the prescribed form by 7.6.2000, indicating some of the details to be furnished therein in clear and specific terms, asking the candidate to report before the other Medical Officer for the purpose.
Placing such information before the CAT at New Delhi, dismissal of the OA, as having become infructuous, seems to have been sought and the Tribunal also dismissed the same as having been rendered infructuous in the light of the subsequent turn of events.
Aggrieved, the respondent moved the Kerala High Court in O.P. No.13548 of 2001 S .
While so, on receipt of the Communication dated 8.1.2001, the respondent herein filed OA No.327 of 2001 before the CATs Bench at Ernakulam, Kerala State, challenging the cancellation.
The CBI seems to have opposed the same refuting such allegations asserting that the impugned process of selection was companyducted under the overall supervision of the Chairman, Recruitment Board and that the Physical Efficiency Test was also companyducted under the supervision of a Superintendent of Police.
It further transpired that the Director, CBI, on receipt of companyplaints relating to the selections made, companystituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of a Joint Director with two Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, CBI, as Members to enquire into the same and on submission of their Report and companysidering the same, ordered cancellation of the recruitment process held at Hyderabad.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of S.L.P. C No.8356 of 2002 RAJU, J. Leave granted.
By an Order dated 10.4.2001, the same appears to have been dismissed at the admission stage itself, observing that the action relating to cancellation having been taken bona fide and in public interest after due deliberation, does number call for interference and there was numberlegitimate cause of action.
Several persons including the private respondent applied and the candidates were called for undergoing written test on 24.4.2000 and interview on 30.4.2000 at Hyderabad.
After passing the same, the companytesting respondent was served with a Communication dated 25.5.2000 that he was selected for appointment to the post of Constable Group C post in the CBI in the pay scale of Rs.3050 75 3590 80 4590.
