Chhattisgarh HC Declines To Intervene In 509 ITI Appointments, Citing Ongoing State Inquiry Into Alleged Recruitment Irregularities

The petitioners challenged the selection process for Training Officer posts in Chhattisgarh ITIs pursuant to an advertisement dated 1 September 2010, seeking to quash the process and appointment orders dated 10 January and 2 May 2013.

They alleged that selected candidates lacked prescribed qualifications or required documents and that the selection involved other irregularities, including non-compliance with the reservation roster.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that substantially similar complaints had been considered by the Lok Ayog and that consequential action had been initiated.

The petitioners also informed the Court that the State had begun an inquiry and disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged irregularities.

The Court considered its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the limits of judicial review.

It held that the Court should not presume that a selection process or appointments are unlawful on unsupported allegations, nor undertake a roving or fishing inquiry into individual appointments without an adequate factual foundation; allegations requiring detailed factual examination call for an appropriate fact-finding inquiry.

No specific precedent or particular recruitment-rule provision was cited in the order.

The allegations concerned numerous appointments and raised factual questions about candidates’ qualifications, documents and reservation-roster compliance. The Court considered that determining those matters would require detailed fact-finding, which it could not undertake through a roving inquiry under Article 226 in the absence of an appropriate factual foundation.

Given the State’s stated inquiry and proceedings, and the prior directions requiring an appropriate inquiry before interfering with confirmed appointments, the Court found no basis for further directions at that stage.

It clarified that its decision did not amount to a clean chit for any officer or candidate allegedly involved.

It reserved the petitioners’ liberty to challenge any subsequent action or decision of the competent authority before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.