Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Mr. Kiran B on 20 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 26214 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO. 26321 OF 2023 (S-CAT),
WRIT PETITION NO. 26349 OF 2023 (S-CAT),
WRIT PETITION NO. 26482 OF 2023 (S-CAT),
WRIT PETITION NO. 26494 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 26214 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG
MUMBAI-400 001
2 . BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
(RARE MATERIAL PROJECT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
P.B. NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC)
AND:
1. Mr. RAMESHA BARIKARA
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA BARIKAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
-
2
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B-BOILER ATTENDANT
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
2. Mr. SHIVKUMAR D.
S/O DODDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
3. Mr. DHRUVAKUMAR
S/O RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
4. Mr. DHANANJAYA D.
S/O DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
5. Mr. SIDDESHA
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
-
3
6. Mr. YOGANANDA R.
S/O T.N. REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
7. Mr. NANJUTI NARESH
S/O NANJUTI BALA KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
8. Mr. THILAKPRASAD K.M.
S/O MAHADEVA C.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
9. Mr. KUMARANAYAKA H.M.
S/O LATE MAHADEVA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
10 . Mr. MANJUNATHA C.
S/O CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS SECURITY GUARD
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
-
4
11 . Mrs. RANJITHA
W/O RAKSHITH S.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
12 . Ms. SUSMITHA S. SHENOY
D/O V. SRENIVASA SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
13 . Mrs. ALLU KOKILA
D/O A. INDUU SEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER GRADE-III
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT/S QUASHING ANNEXURE-'A'
i.e., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CAT, BENGALURU IN O.A No-170/00407/2022,
DATED 23.08.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00407/2022 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
-
5
IN WRIT PETITION NO.26321 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG
MUMBAI-400 001
2. BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
(RARE MATERIAL PROJECT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
P.B. NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC)
AND:
Ms. JAYASRI N.
D/O A.M. NARADAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT/S QUASHING ANNEXURE 'A'
i.e., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CAT, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
No.170/00440/2022, DATED 23.08.2023, AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION i.e., ORIGINAL
APPLICATION No.170/00440/2022, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
-
6
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 26349 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG
MUMBAI-400 001
2 . BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
(RARE MATERIAL PROJECT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
P.B. NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC)
AND:
1. Mr. CHOWDAPPA G.M.
S/O MARUTHI G.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B-BOILER ATTENDANT
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P. NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
2. Mr. SHUBHAM NIRANJAN PATIL
S/O. NIRANJAN PATIL
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B-BOILER ATTENDANT
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P. NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
3. Mr. RENUKUMAR K.A.
S/O LATE APPACHU K.T.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS DRIVER ORDINARY GRADE
-
7
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
4. Mr. MANOJ KUMAR
S/O LATE NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS DRIVER ORDINARY GRADE
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
5. Mr. SUNIL KUMARA H.S.
S/O SHIVARAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS DRIVER ORDINARY GRADE
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
6. Mr. SHIVASHANKAR JAGANNATH SONUNE
S/O SHIVASHANKAR JAGANNATH SONUM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS PHARMACIST/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT/S QUASHING ANNEXURE 'A'
i.e., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CAT, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
No.170/00363/2022, DATED 23.08.2023, AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION i.e., ORIGINAL
APPLICATION No.170/00363/2022, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
-
8
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 26482 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG
MUMBAI-400 001
2. BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
(RARE MATERIAL PROJECT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
P.B.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC)
AND:
Mr. KIRAN B.
S/O BABASHANKAR K.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT-C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN B., RESPONDENT/PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT/S QUASHING
ANNEXURE-'A' i.e., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE CAT, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.170/00284/2023, DATED 09.10.2023, AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION i.e.,
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00284/2023, FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
-
9
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 26494 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG
MUBMAI-400 001
2. BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
(RARE MATERIAL PROJECT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
P.B. NO.1, YELWAL (P.O.)
MYSURU-571 130
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC)
AND:
1. Mr. GOVIND PUNARAM KUMHAR
S/O PUNARAM M. KUMHAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
2. Mr. ANIKET SING
S/O DHARMARAJ SINGH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
3. Mr. AMIT HAZRA
S/O LATE BHAJAN HAZRA
AGED AOBUT 24 YEARS
-
10
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
4. Ms. SAHANA PRIYA N.
D/O NAGARAJE GOWDA S.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
5. Mr. ALEX GURIA
S/O PAULUS GURIA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
6. Mr. SHIVAM CHAURASIYA
S/O RAKESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
7. Mr. ADARI DILEEP KUMAR
S/O ADARI RAMU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
8. Mr. SANGAMESHA
-
11
S/O UMA SHANKAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
9. Mr. SWAMY E.
S/O EREGOWDA U. CHIKKONU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
10 . Mr. DIPANSH K. BALPANDE
S/O KRUSHNA RAMAJI BALPANDE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
11 . Mr. SRINIVASA N.
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
12 . Mr. MOHANKUMAR K.S.
S/O SRINIVASH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNCIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1 YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU 571130
-
12
13 . Mr. JIVAN JYOTI PRUSTY
S/O NAROTTAN PRUSTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
14 . Mr. ANKIT KUMAR VERMA
S/O RAM CHARITRA PRASAD VERMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
15 . Mr. MUTHUKUMARAN S.
S/O SUBBARAYAN G.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
16 . Mr. PRATAP KUMAR THAKUR
S/O RAMSUNDAR THAKUR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
17 . Mr. AMIT KUMAR
S/O SANTOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
-
13
MYSURU-571 130
18 . Mr. RAJENDRA MEENA
S/O BADRI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
19 . Mr. HANISH KHAN
S/O HANIF KHAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
20 . Mr. AKASH SIDDHARTH MESHRAM
S/O LATE SIDDHARTH MESHRAM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
21 . Mr. RAVICHANDRA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
22 . Mr. SUBRAT BARIK
S/O LAXMIDHAR BARIK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
-
14
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
23 . Mr. PRAVEEN G.
S/O GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
24 . Mr. DINESH R.
S/O RAVICHANDRAN P.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
25 . Mr. DHANANJAYA K.N.
S/O NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
26 . Mr. MANJUNATHA H.C.
S/O CHENNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
27 . Mr. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O UMA SHANKAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
-
15
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
28 . Mr. GIRISH H.
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
29 . Mr. ADHISH A.
S/O A. ANBALAGAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
30 . Mr. MALAY MANDAL
S/O KAILASH MANDAL
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
31 . Ms. PANCHADARLA VENKATA KUMARI
D/O P. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
32 . Mr. V.V. SUMANTH
-
16
S/O V.B. VASU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
33 . Mr. HARSHITH A.
S/O ANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
34 . Ms. PRUTHVI K.B.
D/O BIDDAPPA K.K.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
35 . Ms. SUSHMITHA V.V.
D/O H.K. SANTHOSHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
36 . Ms. CHINTADA ASHA
D/O C. HARIRAM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
-
17
37 . Mr. PRABHU B.
S/O BASKAR K.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
38 . Mr. BHARATH V.
S/O VASUDEVAN S.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
39 . Mr. KIRAN K.
S/O KRISHNAN K.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
40 . Ms. VARSHINI H.
D/O HANUMANTHAIAH K.M.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
41 . Ms. SAHANA K. D/O NAVEEN N.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
-
18
42 . Mr. DILLIP KUMAR SETHI
S/O PRAFULLA SETHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS TECHNICIAN/B
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
43 . Mr. SHAILESH GANAPATI VARIK
S/O GANAPATI MANIK VARIK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
44 . Mr. ARUN KUMAR N.
S/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
45 . Ms. SARAGADAM YAMUNA
D/O LATE S. ESWARA RAO
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
46 . Ms. SNEHA BASAPPA DEYANNAVAR
D/O BASAPPA N. DEYANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1
YELWAL(P.O), MYSURU-571 130
-
19
47 . Ms. PALLAVI
D/O GOALA NAYARI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
48 . Mr. VASPARI RAJU
S/O VASPARI MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
49 . Mr. LOKESH KUMAR
S/O LAXMI KANT THAKUR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
50 . Mr. GONDABOINA CHAITANYA KUMAR
S/O G. VENKATA SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
51 . Ms. DEEPA GOOLIGOUDAR
D/O HANAMAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1,
YELWAL(P.O), MYSURU-571 130
-
20
52 . Mr. GUGULOTH SHANKAR
S/O GUGULOTH PAPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
53 . Mr. SAPUL K.B.
S/O BIDDAPPA K.K.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
54 . Mr. PUNEETH R P
S/O R.K. PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL(P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
55 . Mr. DEV KUMAR
S/O LATE BISHU DAS
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
56 . Mr. AYUSH KUMAR
S/O PRAMOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1,
YELWAL (P.O), MYSURU-571 130
-
21
57 . Mr. SHYAM KUMAR VERMA
S/O SUBHASH CHANDRA VERMA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
58 . Mr. KAMLESH KUMAR
S/O RAM BAHADUR MAHTO
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
59 . Mr. INDRESH KUMAR
S/O PAHALOO
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
60 . Mr. SHRADDHA KRISHNA BARDE
D/O KRISHNA BABURAO BARDE
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
61 . Mr. RAHUL PATEL
S/O JAI PRAKASH PATEL
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1,
YELWAL (P.O), MYSURU-571 130
-
22
62 . Mr. NARAYANA SAHU
S/O PARASURAM SAHU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
63 . Mr. PRITHVI NATH KASANDHAN
S/O RAMNAUSH KASANDHAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
64 . Mr. PRASHANT VISHWAKARMA
S/O BHARAT LAL VISHWAKARMA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
65 . Ms. MUSKAN SHAHI
D/O UDAY PRATAP SHAHI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1
YELWAL (P.O), MYSURU-571 130
66 . Mr. AVNEESH KUMAR TRIPATHI
S/O SUSHIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT, P.NO.1
YELWAL (P.O), MYSURU-571 130
-
23
67 . Mr. NITIN KUMAR YADAV
S/O JAGAN SINGH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT/C
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE-
RARE MATERIAL PROJECT,
P.NO.1, YELWAL (P.O)
MYSURU-571 130
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R61 & R62
TO R67)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT/S QUASHING
ANNEXURE-'A' i.e., THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE CAT, BENGALURU IN O.A
No.170/00410/2022, DATED 23.08.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION i.e., O.A
No.170/00410/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.10.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-
24
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Writ Petitions No.26214/2023, 26321/2023, 26349/2023 and 26494/2023 are filed challenging the common order dated 23.08.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Original Applications No.170/00407/2022, 170/00440/2022, 170/00363/2022 and 170/00410/2022, while Writ Petition No.26482/2023 is filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2023 in O.A.No.170/284/2023.
2. The Original Applications were filed challenging the Office Memoranda dated 26.08.2022 passed by the second respondent, wherein the recruitments made through advertisement dated 01.09.2018, have been cancelled and the services of the applicants have been terminated with immediate effect.
3. The Tribunal allowed the applications and the operative portion reads as under:
-25
"(a) The impugned orders dated 26.08.2022 vide which the services of the applicants have been terminated, are quashed and set aside.
(b) The authorities are directed to get a detailed investigation conducted through a professional investigating agency such as the CBI, in order to segregate the cases of appointments of candidates that have become tainted, due to any connection with the fraudulent process on account of irregularities in the process of selection as pointed out by the Committee.
(c) Subsequent to this segregation, of the tainted cases from the untainted ones, suitable action under law may be taken against the candidates in the tainted cases."
4. We have heard Shri. Aravind Kamath K., learned Additional Solicitor General along with Shri.Unnikrishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions, Shri. Prithveesh M.K, learned counsel for caveators/respondents No.1 to 13 in W.P.No.26214/2023, for respondent in W.P.No.26321/2023, for caveators/respondents No.1 to 6 in W.P.No.26349/2023, for caveators/respondents No.1 to 67 in W.P.No.26494/2023 and Shri. Kiran B, respondent/party-in-person.
-
26
5. The facts pleaded in the petition can be summarized as under:
(a) that the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), is a premier institution involved in nuclear research, development, design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors and allied fuel cycle technologies, including exploration, mining, heavy water production, nuclear fuel fabrication, reprocessing and waste management. The second petitioner - BARC, functions as a research and development unit under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and includes a Rare Materials Project (RMP) in Mysuru, a sensitive installation engaged in advanced nuclear materials research, classified as a Category 'A' installation by the Ministry of Home Affairs for security reasons.
(b) that on the basis of advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018, the RMP, Mysuru invited applications for various scientific, technical,
-27
administrative and auxiliary posts. These positions included Stipendiary Trainee Category-I & II, Technician/B, Driver, Security Guard, Pharmacist and Upper Division Clerk. It was mandated that Stipendiary Trainees shall complete a two years training period before they could be absorbed into the BARC workforce. Following the selection process, 93 candidates were appointed to these positions, with 3 candidates leaving due to resignation, termination or death during or after their training, leaving 90 candidates in service. Of these 90 candidates, only 19 completed probation and 7 were confirmed in substantive positions.
(c) that on 08.05.2019, 27.08.2019 and 20.05.2020, various pseudonymous complaints were lodged against RMP, Mysuru, alleging malpractices in the recruitment process and a local newspaper published an article amplifying these concerns. The situation further escalated on 10.06.2019,
-
28
when the RMP received a police notice regarding alleged irregularities in the recruitment process. In addition, 5 audio clips surfaced, one of which became viral on social media allegedly depicting an RMP employee bargaining for a bribe with a wait-listed candidate.
(d) that RMP officials in Mysuru ignored the complaints and did not take corrective action, purportedly due to collusion with external factors to prevent exposure. Attempts to dismiss the allegations as unsubstantiated coupled with a lack of reporting to higher authority of the department and meant that Mumbai-based DAE authorities were unaware of the full extent of the alleged fraud and irregularities occurring in the recruitment process.
(e) that in response to the viral audio clip in May 2020, the DAE initiated an investigation conducted by the Vigilance Officer of RMP, Mysuru. The report submitted on 21.10.2020
-
29
confirmed that Mr.Krishnappa, an RMP employee, solicited money from a wait-listed candidate, resulting in disciplinary action. Consequently, Mr. Krishnappa was dismissed from service on 29.06.2022. Further revelations during this investigation uncovered extensive corrupt practices, prompting the formation of a committee on 26.05.2022 to conduct a comprehensive probe into the recruitment process.
(f) that the committee's report filed on 29.06.2022 concluded that question papers had been leaked, recruitment officials failed to conduct the examination fairly and evidence was destroyed by the RMP officials to conceal irregularities. The report highlighted breaches of confidentiality in question paper handling and printing, involvement of RMP officials in examination malpractices and a strong nexus between RMP officials and external contractors with evidence of
-
30
favoritism toward employees' relatives and associates in exchange for bribes. Based on these findings, 11 RMP officials were implicated, Mr. Krishnappa and Mr. P. Sripal were dismissed and 9 others are facing disciplinary action.
(g) that the further two reports were also received including a cyber forensic report and due to irregularities, the DAE annulled the entire recruitment process related to advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018, and issued an order on 26.08.2022 to terminate the employment of 91 candidates. This led to multiple Original Applications No.363/2022, 410/2022, 440/2022 and 284/2023 being filed before the Tribunal. Thereafter, O.A.No.170/284/2023 was filed by Shri. Kiran B, party-in-person, which was also disposed of by order dated 09.10.2023 following the earlier order dated 23.08.2023.
6. The Tribunal has allowed the applications and granted the relief as extracted in paragraph No.3 supra. It is
-
31 noticed that the Tribunal has made the following observation:
that the petitioner had failed to establish that the fraud vitiated the entire selection. The Committee overseeing the selection did not specify any direct or indirect beneficiaries of alleged malpractice, nor did it establish any candidate's appointment as definitively tainted. No evidence of restricted publicity hindered fair opportunity, as over 19,600 applications were received online for approximately 103 posts, negating claims of inadequate advertisement. Claim that local candidates with connections to the recruiting body, RMP, Mysuru and other DAE units, unfairly benefited is unsupported by any proven links to misconduct. The respondents' failure to secure credible investigative support, such as, from the CBI, to probe into the alleged links and misconduct raises concerns about procedural integrity.
Before any drastic measures like the termination of all appointments, a detailed and independent investigation is necessary to identify specific instances of fraud. Only with such evidence would it be justifiable to consider canceling
-32
the entire selection process and invalidating the appointments.
7. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:-
(a) that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, erroneously attributes wrongdoing to them at every stage, without sufficient reasoning or supporting material. The Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the initial complaints regarding recruitment malpractices in the year 2019 were suppressed by the very officials involved in the recruitment process, who conspired with candidates and external elements to cover up their misconduct. Investigations conducted by RMP, Mysuru, were manipulated to conclude that the complaints lacked merit and a nexus among officials, candidates and external elements allowed this cover-up to persist, ultimately delaying any corrective action by the Head Office in Mumbai. This fact was duly presented to the
-33
Tribunal but was disregarded and the petitioners' subsequent actions against the culpable officials were also overlooked.
(b) that the directions of the Tribunal for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe were based on findings of irregularities, contradicts its concurrent endorsement of the respondents' recruitment. If the recruitment process itself is fraudulent, all appointments stemming from it must be nullified in their entirety, as partial legitimacy would perpetuate the illegalities. Allowing the respondents to continue in service and merely investigating individual culpability would undermine the integrity of the recruitment process. The decision of the petitioners to terminate the respondents is justified and the respondents retained the right to reapply in future recruitments, with consideration for their eligibility at the time of the Original Application.
-
34
(c) that the Tribunal erred in applying principles of natural justice to the respondents, whose appointments lack legal standing. Recruitment tainted by malafides does not entitle beneficiaries to the same protections as regular employment, including notice or other procedural rights. Thus, the Tribunal should have recognized that fraudulent appointments do not vest any right to continue employment.
(d) that the petitioners acknowledge a delay in initiating action but argue that this delay should not be construed as legitimizing the respondents' appointments. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fraudulent appointments. Thus, delay in addressing the irregularities does not diminish the illegality of the respondents' appointments. Further, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the entire recruitment process was grossly vitiated leading to fraudulent recruitment
-
35
practices that render the process non-est and void ab-initio.
(e) that the delay cited by the Tribunal is attributable to external factors, particularly the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted normal operations and imposed significant limitations on Government Departments nationwide. Additionally, the main office of the petitioners' Department is located in Mumbai, while the irregularities occurred at RMP Mysuru, exacerbating communication delays. The petitioners have since taken disciplinary action against responsible officials, including suspensions and transfers and initiated proceedings to rectify these irregularities. The delay is neither willful nor a justification for allowing fraudulent appointments to continue.
(f) that the Tribunal overlooked significant factors impacting the disciplinary proceedings against Shri. B. Krishnappa, specifically those arising
-
36
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The travel restrictions imposed across India led to considerable logistical challenges, requiring officers from Mumbai to travel to Mysuru on multiple occasions to conduct proceedings. These constraints inevitably delayed the conclusion of disciplinary actions.
(g) that the Tribunal failed to acknowledge that certain officers at RMP, Mysuru deliberately misled the petitioner - Department, providing false information and erroneous reports to conceal misconduct. The reports submitted by two committees highlighted the extent of misconduct and the threat to integrity posed by these irregularities. Nonetheless, the Tribunal disregarded the severity of the recruitment- related malpractices and gross misconduct documented at RMP, Mysuru.
(h) that a significant procedural obstacle lies in distinguishing tainted candidates from untainted
-
37
ones. The investigation revealed that examination question papers were leaked, compromising the integrity of the entire selection process. Consequently, it is infeasible to segregate tainted individuals from the list of selected candidates. In response, the respondents Department's decision to annul the selection panels and terminate candidates' services was deemed fair and just, as it upheld public interest. In cases of fraudulent recruitment, termination without individual notice is valid as the initial selection itself was void ab- initio.
(i) that the suggestion of the Tribunal of selectively identifying and punishing only tainted candidates is contrary to judicial precedents, such as, Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 365; The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha and others reported in (1970) 1 SCC 648 and Krishan Yadav and
-
38
another v. State of Haryana and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165, all of which support the annulment of compromised selections in the interest of procedural integrity. These judgments demonstrate that mass irregularities demand systemic solutions, not individualized adjudication.
(j) that in directing an investigation by an agency such as the CBI, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, contrary to the Apex Court ruling in State of West Bengal and others, v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, which limits the Tribunal's powers in matters requiring specialized investigative bodies. In alignment with the Apex Court's observations in Nidhi Kaim and another, v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 986, (Vyapam Scam's case), the principle that fraud
-
39
vitiates all is applicable here; the Tribunal's mandate does not extend to selectively determining innocence within a fraudulently executed selection process.
(k) that the Tribunal erred by holding the termination as stigmatic and ordering adherence to principles of natural justice requiring notice for each terminated individual. As clarified by the Apex Court in multiple cases, where mass irregularities invalidate the entire process, individual notices are unwarranted, as termination in such cases is deemed non-stigmatic.
8. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also placed reliance on the following decisions:
• Union of India & Ors, v. O. Chakradhar, by Order dated 19.02.2002 passed in Appeal (Civil) 1326 of 2002;
• Chiarman, All India Railway Rec. Board & Anr v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors., by Order dated 06.05.2010 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.5675-5677 of 2007; and
-
40
• Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board
(DSSSB) and Others, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, contends;
(a) that no independent enquiry of any nature had been conducted by the petitioners before coming to the conclusion that the entire selection stood vitiated on a systemic level.
(b) that there were 29 disciplines to which selections were conducted and in some of the selections, there were no written examination contemplated at all. Thus, the allegation of question paper leak cannot be attributed to all the posts and dismissal of employees who did not face any written test is totally unwarranted.
(c) that even if the contention with regard to leakage of the question paper is accepted in toto, it is not clear as to how many of the several question
-
41
papers had leaked and whether the selections to all the posts stood vitiated.
(d) On the basis of the materials on record, there is no evidence to hold that there was any leakage of the question papers at all.
(e) that since only a few of the selected employees were found to be relatives of the existing RMP employees, the allegations on that count also cannot be accepted.
(f) that this is not a case of invalidation of an examination per se or even the cancellation of the selection on charges of irregularities immediately after the selection is conducted.
(g) that on the basis of the Notification issued on 12.09.2018, examinations were conducted and the selected candidates were appointed. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.08.2023, reads as under:-
-42
"12. In the present case, services of around 90 candidates have been terminated on 26.8.2022. These candidates had been selected through an advertisement issued on 20.8.2018. The selection process against this advertisement was conducted in a phased manner between 17.3.2019 to 25.10.2019. The final result and list of selected candidates was published by the respondents with regard to various posts of the said advertisement in the period between 06.5.2019 to 26.12.2019. All the applicants were subsequently employed in a phased manner on different dates in the year 2019-20. Trainings were conducted for a period of 2 years in accordance with the advertisement. In respect of 19 employees, probation period was closed in the year 2021-22. Confirmation orders were also issued to 7 employees, appointing them in substantive capacity vide orders dated 19.8.2021 & 09.5.2022."
(h) that 7 candidates had completed their probation and had been confirmed against their posts.
(i) that the confidential reports in a sealed cover, which was placed on record by the appellants, had been opened and perused by the Tribunal and it came to the definite conclusion that the materials placed before it would not lead to a conclusion that the entire selection stood vitiated.
-
43
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed extensive materials on record including copies of the intimation of absorption interview of Stipendiary Trainees of RMP, Mysuru; a table indicating retention period and weeded out period of various posts; a table indicating the percentage of local employees, number of employees' relatives and non- relatives etc., in support of their contentions.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the following decisions:
• Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors, By Order dated 02.08.2024 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.335 of 2024 and connected matters;
• Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 356;
• Girjesh Shrivastava and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707;
• Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644; • Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Others v. Ajit Singh Patel and Others, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 285;
-
44 • The State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others, By Order dated 07.05.2024 passed in SLP(C) No.9614/2024;
• East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678;
• Umesh S. Naik v. Karnataka Food & Civil supplies Corporation, reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2488; • Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771; • K. Ragupathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 346; • Dipti Prakash banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60;
• Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405;
• Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95;
• Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Other, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301;
• Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1952 SCR 135;
-
45 • Nazira Begum Lashkar & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., by Order dated 07.11.2000 reported in AIR 2001 SC 102;
• Hanuman Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr, by Order dated 06.09.1996 reported in (1996) 10 SCC 742;
• C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore & Others, reported in 1965 AIR 1293;
• Paschimbanga Prathamik Sikshak Sikshanprapts Bakar-O-Sikshak v. President, West Bengal Primary School Council & Ors., reported in 1996 SCC(7) 333;
• Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel and Others, reported in 1985 AIR 1416;
• State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Assn., reported in 1994 AIR 1654; and • State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal & Ors., by Order dated 31.03.1999 reported in (1999)4 SCC 43.
12. The respondent/party-in-person in W.P. No.26482/2023 contended that the mass termination currently under consideration transcends the realm of simple employment cessation. It is also driven by a motive to shield individuals entangled in alleged misconduct from both the
-
46 employer and employee factions, leading to unjust repercussions of innocent parties affected and that the mass termination executed by the petitioners lack alignment with principles of public interest and probity in governance and the primary intention behind this termination is to safeguard those individuals tainted by impropriety.
13. The party in-person further contended that the Investigation committee's final report reveal that the illegalities and irregularities occurred solely in the recruitment process involving employees', children, relatives and friends and that the report does not assert that the entire recruitment was compromised. Moreover, the report, submitted on 29.07.2022, mentioned about question paper leakage, but the petitioners came to know about the illegal possession of question papers related to 18 out of 27 posts with P. Sripal only after receiving the cyber forensic analysis report submitted on 11.10.2022 which is after issuing termination orders dated 26.08.2022. This raises ambiguity regarding the statements made by the investigation committee's report submitted on 29.07.2022 and it was
-
47 claimed by the petitioner that documents related to recruitment process of BARC/MYS/01/2018 were destroyed without these documents how could the cyber forensic analysis team certify these creates ambiguity and difficulty to accept the petitioners' assertions. The petitioners did not provide any acceptable evidence or logical explanation to substantiate their claim for question paper leakage and limited their submissions to illegal possession of questions; both are distinct matters.
14. It is also contended by party in-person that the petitioners have neither filed any criminal complaint with regard to illegal possession of question papers nor did they make any averments about how unaccounted money was deposited to Sripal's account from Hassan region and how that money is related to the recruitment process. The petitioners relied on five audio clips; none of these audio clips is related to the entire recruitment process under discussion and also they relied on newspaper articles which is focusing solely on the appointment of employee's children and relatives through corruption and also relied on police
-
48 compliant which is limited to irregularities in the recruitment of upper division clerks alone. However, none of this evidence is directly related to the entire recruitment process under discussion. Initially, a decision was made to cancel three recruitments, including BARC/MYS/01/2018, BARC/MYS/01/2021, and BARC/MYS/02/2021 in the RMP. However, this choice was abruptly reversed, resulting in cancellation of only one recruitment, i.e., BARC/MYS/01/2018.
15. It is further contended that the petitioners are strongly resisting impartial inquiry by professional agencies and their hasty actions reflect malafide intent to protect tainted candidates at the expense of innocent individuals by cancelling the entire recruitment process. The impugned memorandum dated 26.08.2022 is also contrary to the mandate under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union shall be removed/terminated from service except after holding an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him given a reasonable
-
49 opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and that his service was terminated without conducting an enquiry or issuance of any notice before termination.
16. This Court after hearing the parties at considerable length had passed an order directing the CBI to conduct an enquiry and to furnish the report. The operative part of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2024, reads as under:
"11. In the above view of the matter, we direct that the material now made available before us be sent for examination to the Central Bureau of Investigation Regional Office at Bengaluru. The Head of Branch (ACB), CBI, Ganganagar, Bengaluru shall examine the material which is placed in the sealed covers and made available to him, including the Forensic Report which is said to be a part of the examination conducted by the petitioners, and shall thereafter provide an independent opinion on the questions formulated by this Court:-
(i) Whether the entire selection stands compromised at a systematic (sic) (systemic) level by reason of the irregularities as stated by the petitioners? If not,
(ii) Whether there is material to show if there was leakage of all the question papers and whether the irregularities were with regard to selection to all the posts?
-
50
(iii) Whether it is possible to segregate the tainted selections from the untainted shall also be examined and a report on the said points shall be made available before this Court?
12. The Registry of this Court shall take appropriate steps to forward the sealed covers made available by the ASG in this case to the Head of Branch (ACB), CBI, Ganganagar, Bengaluru. The said officer shall examine the material and accordingly place a report on record with regard to his conclusions on the points stated in paragraph No.11 of this order, on or before 23.08.2024.
13. On the report being made available by the Officer, the Registry shall take appropriate steps to see that the report is made available along with the relevant files to this Court."
17. The Head of the CBI Branch (ACB), CBI has placed the report in sealed cover pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2024. The report was perused by us on 16.10.2024, and the contents were disclosed to the learned counsel appearing on either side.
18. We proceeded to hear the learned Additional Solicitor General as well as the learned counsel for the respondents after opening the sealed cover in the presence of the learned counsel for both sides.
-
51
19. We have also considered the contentions raised as well as the decisions which are relied on by the learned counsel appearing on either side.
20. We notice that many of the decisions including the decision in The Bihar School Examination Board's case (supra) and the Vyapam Scam's case (supra), which are relied upon by the petitioners are rendered in cases of malpractice in academic examinations. In Krishan Yadav's case (supra), in Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board's case (supra), and in O. Chakradhar's case (supra), the finding that the entire selection process stood vitiated was recorded on the basis of a report placed on record by the CBI after conducting a thorough investigation. In Biswa Ranjan Sahoo's case (supra), the question raised was whether persons, who are appointed in pursuance to a totally vitiated selection process, are entitled to prior notice before termination of the selection as well as the employment which was a result of such a tainted selection. In that case, on a challenge raised to a selection made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
-
52 the Tribunal had called for the records of the examination and on a cursory perusal had found that the entire selection stood vitiated by mass malpractice, which was evident on the face of the record. It was in the said circumstances, that the Apex Court held that where the malpractice was self evident even on a cursory perusal, no further notice would be required to be issued to the selected candidates before terminating the selection en masse.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on several decisions including Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case (supra), wherein it was held that, where services of appointees, who had already put in few years of services is to be terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands of State was imperative. Those three principles are:
" (i) has to establish satisfaction in regard to sufficiency of materials to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted;
-
53
(ii) to determine that the illegality will go to the root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process; and
(iii) whether such material gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner enables the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the appointees in majority have been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt."
22. It was after considering all the decisions on the point which have been relied upon by the petitioners also that the Apex Court held so in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case (supra).
23. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707, it was held that even if there were illegal beneficiaries from a selection process, the attempt should be to weed them out instead of setting aside the entire selection process.
-
54
24. In Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644, it was held that once it is accepted that some of the candidates were untainted and had entered service by virtue of their merit, an attempt should be made to segregate the tainted appointments from the untainted before action is taken.
25. The interim order as well as the final decision of the Apex Court in Vanshika Yadav's case (supra), where the allegation of widespread illegalities in the NEET Examination was considered by the Apex Court is also relied on. In Sachin Kumar's case (supra), the principles with regard to setting aside of an entire selection process have been encapsulated by the Apex Court.
26. We notice that on receiving complaints about the instant selection, the BARC by order dated 26.05.2022 had constituted a committee to investigate into the complaints. The committee by its final report dated 29.07.2022, concluded that:
"i) Various Question Papers under the said advertisement were leaked prior to the examination.
-
55
ii) Officials responsible for recruitment activities in RMP under the said advertisement lacked co-ordination and totally failed in conducting the examination and selection process fairly.
iii) Destroying the evidences, by weeding out of documents, in spite of there being complaints, a deliberate attempt to stop the truth from coming out.
iv) Leaking of question papers and other irregularities were coordinated and executed by some officials of RMP and some contractors.
v) Confidentiality of the process of setting question papers was not maintained adequately by the officials involved in the process. Further, the administrative authorities failed to ensure printing of question papers in a secured environment.
vi) The concerned official was negligent over setting of the Question Papers by Course Coordinators who have taken the help of 5 or more officers for each question paper setting and thus failed in their duties to ensure setting of question papers, in utmost secrecy.
vii) The Examination-in-charge and other officials of RMP, Mysuru had given a scope for leaking of the question papers, and indulged in unprofessional conduct of examination and selection process.
viii) In spite of knowing the involvement of RMP officials and about irregularities that were taking place outside, the concerned Security Officials had not reported the matter appropriately.
-
56
ix) A strong nexus between the officials involved in recruitment activities and contractors was seen for favouring children/relatives friends of RMP employees for illegal gratification."
27. Thereafter, it is submitted that another committee in BARC, Mumbai, carried out cyber analysis of personal computer of one of the conspirators and had submitted a confidential report with regard to the irregularities in the process, that the question papers of examination for 18 out of 27 posts were found to have been sent to the personal gmail account of one of the conspirators and that it can be logically inferred that the question papers of the remaining 9 posts were also leaked. Further, large amount of cash deposits into the bank account of one of the conspirators from different places and financial transactions with other employees were also found.
28. The Tribunal considered the three confidential reports placed in sealed covers, which related to:
(i) Status of question paper leakage and extracts of confidential reports.
-
57
(ii) Report of the Committee dated 29.07.2022 on investigation carried out in the irregularities in Recruitment at RMP, Mysuru.
(iii) Report of the committee dated 11.10.2022 Cyber Forensic Analysis of personal computer allotted to Shri. P. Sripal, Assistant RMP, Mysuru.
29. After perusal the reports also, the Tribunal held that there was an unexplained delay in initiating the corrective action and that there was no material found to hold that the entire selection stood vitiated. It was on these findings the Tribunal found that the mass termination was unwarranted.
30. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the report of the CBI. In the report, a point-wise reply to the questions posed by this Court in its interim order is provided. The relevant portion of the report reads as under:-
"Q1. Whether the entire selection stands compromised at a systematic (sic)(systemic) level by reason of the irregularities as stated by the petitioners?
14. Based on the analysis of the reports made available with the letter from the Registry, the conduct of the Examinations does not match the standards
-58
expected in any selection process under the Union of India. The RMP Inquiry Committee Report does not refer or provide details of violations of any specific SOP/notice/circular/ guidelines of the recruitment process which RMP was bound to follow. However, the fact that the question papers have not been sealed properly in transit from the private printing press to the RMP office shows that there is a high chance of compromise of the confidentiality of the question papers.
15. The Cyber Forensics Report reveals transmission of question papers for 11 out of 29 posts from the official email id to personal email ids of Shri P. Sripal and states that these "appears to be" the question papers used for the examination. However, additional material is required, including the point-to-point comparison of the question papers found in the personal email of Shri P. Sripal, to assess whether they are a match with the actual question papers used in the conduct of the Examinations and whether these corresponded to the question papers used for some or all of the posts advertised.
16. The Cyber Forensic Report also mentions about various cash deposits being made in the account of Mr. Sripal from January 2019 to September 2019, totaling about Rs. 7.25 Lakhs. However, the statement of account of Sripal also shows numerous cash deposits from January 2020 to March 2022 in the account of Mr Sripal. Hence to conclude that the cash deposits from January 2019
-59
to September 2019 are connected to the alleged leakage of question papers used in Examination or any undue to the selected candidates is not possible.
17. The RMP Inquiry Committee Report provides only few instances of the selection of candidates who are relatives of the officials involved in the selection process; it mentions a list of 24 candidates who are related to the officials of the RMP.
18. However, there is no detailing of the particulars of the remaining candidates; there is no break-down provided of the other 67 selected candidates by either region or any other criteria.
19. Hence, even though there are prima facie violations of general expectations of confidentiality in the preparation of question papers, it cannot be concluded beyond doubt from the material available whether the entire selection is compromised.
20. Hence, the undersigned, based on the material available, cannot comment on the integrity of the Examinations.
Q2. Whether there is material to show if there was leakage of all the question papers and whether the irregularities were with regard to selection to all the posts?
21. The material available on record, via the reports, doesn't confirm if the question papers available in the personal mail id of Shri P. Sripal and the
-60
question papers used in the examinations are one and the same.
22. Moreover, the Cyber Forensics Report mentions that some documents which are forwarded from the mail of Shri P. Sripal are password protected and the password is still not broken. Hence, access to those documents is still not available.
23. Hence, the undersigned, based on the material available, cannot answer if the alleged leak was limited to some posts or to all the posts.
Q3. Whether it is possible to segregate the tainted selections from the untainted?
24. The RMP Inquiry Committee Report reveals that all important documents related to this Examination (conducted subsequent to recruitment notification issued vide advertisement no. BARC/MYS/01/2018) were weeded out by RMP under the orders of the then CAO, RMP under suspicious circumstances.
Hence, the undersigned, based on the material available, cannot confirm whether there is any possibility to separate tainted selections from untainted one based on the material available.
(emphasis supplied)
31. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised. We notice that the CBI, after examining the entire materials made available before this Court, which admittedly formed the basis for the decision taken by the
-
61 petitioners to cancel the entire selection and to terminate the services of all the selectees, has expressed its inability to come to a conclusion as to whether the entire selection was vitiated. The CBI in its report has also opined that on the basis of the materials made available before it, it is not possible to segregate the tainted selections from the untainted ones.
32. On perusal of the CBI report, this Court is of the view that the materials are not available to hold that the entire selection process is compromised, at least at this stage of the proceeding. If that be so, the finding of the Tribunal that the orders of mass termination were not warranted, cannot be said to be perverse or unwarranted.
33. From the principles laid down in the judgments discussed above, termination of entire selection process cannot be resorted to, if the materials do not indicate a systemic failure. If the materials do not support a view that entire selection process is compromised and thereby vitiated, the termination of all the candidates without there being a material to hold that all candidates or at least
-
62 majority of the candidates are the undue beneficiaries of malpractice. It is also relevant to note that materials are not available to conclude that the question papers which were sent to the personal email of Mr. P. Shripal, were shared with the selected candidates. Though, it is a possibility that Mr. P. Shripal, might have shared the question papers with some of the candidates if not all, at this juncture, it is not possible to find out whether any of the selected candidates had access to the question papers said to have been leaked before the examination.
34. It is also relevant to note that the contentions raised by the petitioners may be a plausible contention; however, the view expressed by the Tribunal is also very much plausible view in the given set of facts and circumstances. It is well settled position of law that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Court will not substitute its view for the view of the Tribunal unless the impugned order of the Tribunal is untenable in the eye of law. The scope of judicial review against such order of the Tribunal is limited.
-
63 Unless it is demonstrated that the order is illegal and perverse, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction would be slow to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances already noticed in the CBI report.
35. It is also relevant to note that for some of the posts the selection process did not have a written test. And it is also noticed that there were different set of question papers for different posts. It is not the case of the petitioners that all question papers for all posts were leaked. It is also noticed that out of 93 candidates who have been selected, only 24 are from the relatives of the existing employees and said figure is not big enough to conclude that undue favour is conferred on such candidates. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
-
64
36. More than anything else, the Tribunal has kept the doors open for further investigation and appropriate action pursuant to further investigation. Though, we have placed reliance on the report from the CBI which indicates that it is not possible to conclude that the selection process is compromised at a systemic level, we hasten to hold that we have not expressed any conclusive opinion on the merits of the allegations raised in respect of the selection and the petitioners are free to cause any investigation into the allegations and to take appropriate action in accordance with law as against any person found to have any involvement in any illegality in connection with the selections in question. In case, after due investigations as ordered by the Tribunal, if it comes to light that there was any complicity on the part of any of the appointees and that their selections were tainted, the petitioners would be free to take action for cancellation of the appointments after due notice to the concerned candidates.
-
65
37. It is also made clear that observations made either in the report of the CBI or by the Tribunal or by this Court in these proceedings shall not come in the way of investigating agency carrying out its probe and the investigating agency shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order or the order of the Tribunal. In the light of the findings of the Tribunal and this Court, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the period spent by the employees concerned out of service shall be reckoned for the limited purpose of continuity of service. However, since the termination cannot be held to be completely unjustified, the employees will not be entitled to salary or other monetary benefits for the said period. This is also subject to any further action to be taken on the basis of further independent investigation, if any.
38. With the above clarification, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
-
66
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, in all the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE cp*