Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay vs D/O Post on 31 October, 2025
1
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1671/2018
Reserved on: 13.10.2025
Pronounced on: 31.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Ajay, S/o Shri Satya Narayan, Aged about 24 years, R/o
VPO Jassaur Kheri, The Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar -
124505, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant,
Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani - 127021.
2. Paras, S/o Shri Hansraj, Aged about 26 years, R/o Kh
Kheri
Jasaur, Kheri Jasur (18), Jassaur Kheir, District Jhajjar,
Haryana - 124505, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon - 122016.
3. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Shri Rajender Singh, Aged about
25 years, R/o VPO Nahra, District Sonep
Sonepat - 131103,
Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Hisar
Division, Hisar - 125001.
4. Shri Kapil Dev, S/o Shri Yes Dev, Aged about 26 years,
R/o Village Kharman, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar
- 124507, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assi
Assistant,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon - 122001.
5. Sh. Sandeep (GDS), S/o Sh. Ramphal, Aged about 35
years, R/o VPO Bhambhewa, Bham Bhewa (9), District
Jind, Haryana - 126113, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Karnal Division, Karnal - 122001.
6. Shiv
iv Kumar, S/o Sh. Raj Singh, Aged about 25 years,
R/o Hanuman Nagar, Gali No.7, Near Sugar Mill, Kami
Road, Sonipat, Haryana - 131001, Group 'C' employee,
Post of Postal Assistant, Faridabad Division, Faridabad -
132001.
2
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
7. Smt. Santosh Kumari, W/o Sh. Ami Amit, S/o Sh. Satpat
Singh, Aged about 24 years, R/o Village Tihar Kalan, P.O.
Tihar Baghru, Sonipat, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post
of Postal Assistant, Karnal Division, Karnal - 122001.
8. Sh. Sajan, S/o Sh. Sunder Singh, Aged about 27 years,
R/o Village Jagdishpur, P.O. Rathdana, District Sonepat,
Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant,
Ambala Division, Ambala - 133001.
9. Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Karambir Singh, Aged about
25 years, R/o VPO Pinana, Sonepat, Haryana, Group 'C'
employee, Post
Post of Postal Assistant, Kurukshetra Division,
Kurukshetra - 136118.
10. Pankaj Rohilla, S/o Sh. Ram Bhaj, Aged about 28
years, R/o VPO Mahra, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat,
Gohana - 131301, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of
Postal Assistant, Ambala Division, Ambala - 133001.
11. Sh. Amit, S/o Sh. Azad, Aged about 23 year
years, R/o VPO
Kansala, Thana Sampla, Tehsil Rohtak, Haryana - 124406,
Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Bhiwani
Division, Bhiwani - 127021.
12. Sh. Sameer Kumar, S/o Sh. Chandbeer Singh, Aged
about 28 years, R/o H.No. 760/29, Tilak Nagar, Petrol
Pump,
ump, Rohtak, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
13. Shri Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Jaipal, Aged about 29
years, R/o VPO Julana, Ward No.01, Tehsil Julana, District
Jind - 126101, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Hisar Division, Hisar.
14. Deepika Madan, D/o Sh. Harish Kumar Madan, Aged
about 27 years, R/o H.No.345, Braham Colony, Sonipat,
Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Karnal
Division, Karnal.
15. Shri Sunil, S/o Shri Ramesh, Aged about 26 years, R/o
H.No.553, VPO Kurar, District Sonipat, Haryana, Group 'C'
employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Karnal Division, Karnal.
3
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
16. Shri Sushil Kumar, S/o Sh. Dariyav Singh, Aged about
25 years, R/o Village Tewari,
Tewari, P.O. Bajana Khurd, Tehsil
Gannaur, District Rohtak, Haryana, Group 'C' employee,
Post of Postal Assistant, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.
17. Shri Sandeep Kumar, S/o Shri Mahender Singh, Aged
about 26 years, R/o Village Kothal Khurd, P.O. Kothal
Khurd, District
District Mahendergarh, Haryana, Group 'C'
employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Gurgaon Division,
Gurgaon.
18. Shri Umed Singh, S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan, Aged about
30 years, R/o Village Ahmedpur Majra, P.O. Bicpari, Tehsil
Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana, Group ''C' employee,
Post of Sorting Assistant, New Delhi Division, New Delhi.
19. Shri Bir Singh, S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged about 27
years, R/o VPO Kharkhara (Akoda), District Mohindergarh,
Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Sorting Assistant,
New Delhi Division,
Divis New Delhi.
20. Shri Amit Rathee, S/o Sh. Mahender Singh, Aged about
26 years, R/o 667/25, Bhagwan Nagar, Rohtak Road, Jind
- 126102, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Sorting
Assistant, New Delhi Division, New Delhi.
21. Shri Parveen Kumar, S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, Aged
about 30 years, R/o VPO Sunarian Kalan, Rohtak -
124001, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Haryana Circle, Ambala.
22. Shri Anil Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pal, Aged about 24
years, R/o VPO Madanpura, Tehsil Uklana Mandi, District
Hisar, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Hisar Division, Hisar.
23. Shri Ravinder, S/o Sh. Rambhaj, Aged about 24 years,
R/o VPO Mehrana, Jhajjar, Haryana, Group 'C' employee,
Post of Postal Assistant, Rohtak Division, Rohtak
Rohtak.
24. Renu, W/o Sonu, S/o Sh. Satbir Singh, Aged about 27
years, R/o VPO Shamlo Kalan, Tehsil & District Jind -
4
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
126114, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Hisar Division, Hisar.
25. Shri Hardeep, S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged about 27 years,
R/o
/o Village Khaper, P.O. Bhongra, Block Uchana, District
Jind, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra.
26. Shri Sudhir, S/o Sh. Rajender Singh, Aged about 25
years, R/o VPO Khizerpur Ahir, Tehsil Gannaur, Di
District
Sonipat, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant, Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra.
27. Shri Sanjay, S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, Aged about 25
years, R/o VPO Satrod Kalan, District Hisar, Haryana,
Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistan
Assistant, Hisar
Division, Hisar.
28. Shri Ishwar, S/o Sh. Satya Narayan, Aged about 26
years, R/o VPO Kharar Alipur, District Hisar, Haryana,
Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Hisar
Division, Hisar.
29. Shri Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Sheokaran, Aged abou
about
28 years, R/o VPO Gurera, Tehsil Siwani, Bhiwani -
127406, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Sorting
Assistant, New Delhi Division, New Delhi.
30. Shri Yogesh, S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Aged about 25
years, R/o VPO Dabodha Kalan, Thana Bahadurgarh,
Districtt Jhajjar, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of
Postal Assistant, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
31. Shri Tarun Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged about
24 years, R/o VPO Dadri Toye, Tehsil Jhajjar, District
Rohtak, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal
Assistant,
istant, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
32. Shri Deepak Chhillar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Chhillar,
Aged about 26 years, R/o H.No.349/4, Friends Colony, Gali
No.1, Line Par, Bahadurgarh, Haryana - 124507, Group 'C'
employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Faridabad Divis
Division,
Faridabad.
5
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
33. Shri Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sharma, Aged
about 27 years, R/o Jaji, P.O. Juan, Sonipat, Haryana,
Group 'C' employee, Post of Postal Assistant, Sonipat
Division, Sonipat.
34. Km. Dimple Verma, D/o Sh. Babu Lal Verma, Aged
about 24 years, R/o VPO Beri, Pana-
Pana-Chulyan, Saraffo Wali
Gali, District Jhajjar, Haryana, Group 'C' employee, Post of
Postal Assistant, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani.
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Yogesh Mahur, Mr. Mukesh Kumar,
Kumar, Mr. Harkesh Parashar,
Mr. Srikant Singh, Mr. Srajan. S Kulshrestha, Mr. Sachin
Miglani, Mr. Chiranjan Tyagi)
Tyagi
Versus
1. Union of India,
India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Postal Services
Services,
Department of Posts (Recruitment Division),
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani, Haryana.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Gurgaon
n Division, Gurgaon, Haryana.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Hisar Division, Hisar, Haryana.
6
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
6. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Karnal Division, Karnal, Haryana.
7. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Faridabad Division, Faridabad, Haryana.
8. Superintendent
Superinte of Post Offices,
Ambala Division, Ambala.
9. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana.
10. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Rohtak Division, Rohtak.
11. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Offices
Sonipat Division, Sonipat, Haryana.
Har
12. Superintendent RMS,
RMS
Delhi Division, Nanakpura, New Delhi - 110021.
...Respondents
(By Advocate:
Advocate Mr. R.K. Jain)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Quash and set aside
(a) Memo. No. B-1/7/Rectt, B 1/7/Rectt, PAs 2013 & 2014 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Office of Supdt. Post Offices, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani-
Bhiwani-127021, whereby the Applicant No.1 was removed from the list of selected 7 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 candidates in respect of of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-14.
2013 14.
(b) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013 B II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 122001, whereby the Applicant No. 2 was Gurgaon-122001, removed from the list of selected candidates iin respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(c) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt./DR/RA/2013 B 2/4/Rectt./DR/RA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, Hisar 125001, whereby the Applicant No. 3 was removed from the list of selected selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(d) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013 B II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 122001, whereby the Applicant No. 4 was Gurgaon-122001, removed from the list list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(e) Memo. No. B-I/93/Rectt/2013 B I/93/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Office of Supdt. Post Offices, Faridabad Division, Faridabad-121001, Faridabad 121001, whereby the Applicant N No.5 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013(k) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013 B II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 122001, whereby the Applicant No.11 was Gurgaon-122001, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(l) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013 B 2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, Hisar 1, whereby the Applicant No.12 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013(m) Memo. No. B-15/Sandeep B 15/Sandeep dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karna Karnal-
132001, whereby the Applicant No.13 was removed from 8 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(n) Memo. No. B-15/Deepika B 15/Deepika Madan dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Di Division, Hisar-
125001, whereby the Applicant No.14 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(o) Memo. No. B-15/Sunil B 15/Sunil dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Karnal Division, Hisar Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No.15 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(p) Memo. No. B 2/13/Rectt/PA/2013-14
B-2/13/Rectt/PA/2013 dated
11.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Po Post Offices, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, whereby the Applicant No.16 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(q) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013 B II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt.
Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 122001, whereby the Applicant No.17 was Gurgaon-122001, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(r) Memo. No. B-2/Recruitment/Umed B 2/Recruitment/Umed Singh/SA/2013 Singh/SA/2013- 14 dated dated 12.01.2018 passed by Superintendent, RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi-110021, Delhi 110021, whereby the Applicant No.18 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013
(s) Memo. No. B 2/Recruitment/Bir
B-2/Recruitme Singh
Yadav/SA/2013 14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Yadav/SA/2013-14 Superintendent, RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi Delhi-110021, whereby the Applicant No.19 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(t) Memo. No. B-2/Recruitment/Amit B 2/Recruitment/Amit Rathee/SA/2013 Rathee/SA/2013- 14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Superintendent, RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi-110021, Delhi 110021, whereby the Applicant No.20 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Exa Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013 9Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 (u) Memo. No. STA/24-259 STA/24 259 dated 10.01.2018 passed by Director Postal Services (HQ), Haryana Circle, Ambala Ambala-
133001, whereby the Applicant No.21 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 Recruitment 2013-2014.
(v) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013 B 2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, Hisar 125001, whereby the Applicant No.22 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013(w) Memo. No. B-2/13/Rectt/PA/2013 B 2/13/Rectt/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, whereby the Applicant No.23 was removed from the list of selected candidates in resp respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(x) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013 B 2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, Hisar 125001, whereby the Applicant No.24 was removed from the list of selected cand candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013(y) Memo. No. B-4/34/Rectt/2013 B 4/34/Rectt/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra 136118, whereby the Applicant No.25 was Kurukshetra-136118, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(z) Memo. No. B-4/34/Rectt/2013 B 4/34/Rectt/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra 136118, whereby the Applicant No.26 was Kurukshetra-136118, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(aa) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013 B 2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, Hisar 125001, whereby the AApplicant No.27 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013 10Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 (bb) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013 B 2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, Hisar , whereby the Applicant No.28 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013(cc) Memo. No. B2/Recruitment/Sandeep Kumar/SA/2013 14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Kumar/SA/2013-14 Superintendent, RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi Delhi-110021, whereby the Applicant No.29 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(dd) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013 B II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 122001, whereby the Applicant No.30 was Gurgaon-122001, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(ee) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013 B II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 122001, whereby the Applicant No.31 was Gurgaon-122001, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(ff) Memo. No. B-1/93/Rectt/2013 B 1/93/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Faridabad Division, Faridabad 121001, whereby the Applicant No.32 was Faridabad-121001, removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(gg) Memo. No. B-4/7/2014 B 2014 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Sonipat Division, Sonipat Sonipat-121001, whereby the Applicant No.33 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-2014.
(hh) Memo. No. B-1/7/Rectt/PAs B 1/7/Rectt/PAs 2013 & 2014 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani-127021, Bhiwani 127021, whereby the Applicant No.34 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
2013 11Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 B. Direct the respondents to allow the applicants to join their services with full back wages.
C. Any other relief the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted as under:
2.1. This O.A. was originally decided by this Tribunal on 31.10.2019, where 34 applicants challenged their termination from Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant recruitment for the year 2013 2014 2013-2014 due to alleged malpractices in the selection process conducted by CMC Limited.
2.2. The Postal Directorate had conducted a vigilance inquiry after complaints of malpractices during the recruitment conducted by CMC Ltd. On enquiry, termination orders were passed against 199 candidates across five circles, including Haryana. 2.3. In compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions in Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10513/2016), individual show show-cause notices (SCNs) were issued to candidates suspected of 12 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 malpractice, and after considering replies, certain candidates were reinstated while others were not. 2.4. Out of the 37 not reinstated candidates, 34 filed the present Original Application before this Tribunal challenging their termination.
2.5. The Tribunal decided against the applicants vide its order dated 31.10.2019 referencing a Supreme Court precedent,, which led the applicants to approach the Delhi High Court. The operative portion of the said judgment of this Tribunal, reads as under:
"6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the law laid down by various Courts and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Shankar [(1992) 2 SCC 206], Commission vs. B.M. Vijaya Shank we find that the impugned orders passed by the respondents with respect to each of the applicants cannot be interfered with."
2.6. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide its order dated 30.07.2025 in WP(C) 13341/2019 and connected matte matters, set aside the order of this Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, observing as under:
13Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 "1. These petitions have been filed challenging the order dated
31.10.2019 passed in O.A. No. 1671/2018, titled Pankaj Ors., dismissing the O.A. filed Rohilla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. by the petitioners herein by a totally unreasoned and cryptic order, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the law laid down by various Courts and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission vs. B.M. Vjaya Shankar (1992) 2 SCC 206), we find that the impugned orders passed by the respondents respondents with respect to each of the applicants cannot be interfered with."
2. As the learned Tribunal has given no reasons for its conclusion, which is contained in paragraph 6, apart from stating that they have followed the judgment of Supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, the order cannot be sustained
3. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The OA shall be restored back to its its original number and shall be considered afresh by the learned Tribunal on its merit.
4. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 19th August, 2025.
5. We are informed that there were a total of 34 applicants before the learned Tribunal, out of whom only 28 have challenged the impugned order before us in form of these writ petitions. The consideration of the O.A. shall, therefore, be confined by the learned Tribunal only for these 29 writ petitioners; the order having become final for the remaining 5. The above direction is being passed for the reason that the recruitment process in question was of the year 2013 2013-14 and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is dated 31.10.2019; to reopen the matter for those who did not challenge the order order of the learned Tribunal, therefore, would not be advisable.
6. Keeping in view the above, we further request the learned Tribunal to make endeavour to dispose of the O.A. within a period of three months of its first listing before it.
7. The petitions, along with the pending applications, are disposed of."
of.
14Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 2.7 As evident from the above, the High Court clarified that the relief in the second round of litigation will be confined to 29 candidates who challenged the order before it, out of the original 34 applicants.
applicants. Therefore, the applicants in the second round are the identified 29 candidates who approached the Hon'ble High Court, whose names are listed below:
S.No Name of the Applicant before Name of the Petitioner the Central Administrative before Hon'ble High Tribunal Court
1. AJAY (APPLICANT NO. 1) Petitioner No.2 (W.P 13341/2019)
2. SANDEEP KUMAR (APPLICANT Petitioner No. 3 (W.P NO. 3) 13341/2019)
3. Kapil Dev (Applicant No. 4 ) Petitioner No. 4 (W.P 13341/2019)
4. Sandeep GDS (Applicant No. 5) Petitioner No. 2 (W.P 1163/2020)
5. Shiv kumar (Applicant No. 6) Petitioner No. 5 (W.P 13341/2019)
6. Santosh Kumari (Applicant No. 7) Petitioner No. 6 (W.P 13341/2019)
7. Sajan (Applicant No. 8) Petitioner No. 1 (W.P 356/2020)
8. Sunil Kumar (Applicant No. 9) Petitioner No. 1 (W.P 2209/2021)
9. Pankaj Rohilla (Applicant No. 10) Petitioner No. 1 (W.P 13341/2019)
10. Amit (Applicant No. 11) Petitioner No. 2 (W.P 15 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 601/2020)
11. Rakesh Kumar (Applicant No. 13) Petitioner No. 7 (W.P 13341/2019)
12. Sunil (Applicant No. 15)) Petitioner No. 8 (W.P 13341/2019)
13. Sushil Kumar (Applicant No. 16) Petitioner No. 3 (W.P 1163/2020)
14. Umed Singh (Applicant No. 18) Petitioner No. 9 (W.P 13341/2019)
15. Bir Singh (Applicant No 19) Petitioner No. 10 (W.P 13341/2019)
16. Amit Rathee (Applicant No. 20) Petitioner No. 11 (W.P 13341/2019)
17. Parveen Kumar (Applicant No. 21) Petitioner No. 1 (W.P 601/2020)
18. Anil Kumar (Applicant No. 22) Petitioner No. 12 (W.P 13341/2019)
19. Ravinder (Applicant No. 23) Petitioner No. 2 (W.P 601/2020)
20. Renu (Applicant No. 24) Petitioner No. 13 (W.P 13341/2019)
21. Hardeep (Applicant No. 25) Petitioner No. 4 (W.P 1163/2020)
22. Sudhir (Applicant No. 26) Petitioner No. 1 (W.P 112/2020)
23. Sanjay (Applicant No. 27) Petitioner No. 14 (W.P 13341/2019)
24. Ishwer (Applicant No. 28) Petitioner No. 15 (W.P 13341/2019)
25. Sandeep Kumar (Applicant No. Petitioner No. 16 (W.P
29) 13341/2019)
26. Yogesh (Applicant No. 30) Petitioner No. 17 (W.P 13341/2019)
27. Deepak Chhillar (Applicant No. Petitioner No. 18 (W.P
32) 13341/2019) 16 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
28. Sanjay Kumar (Applicant No. 33) Petitioner No. 1 (W.P 1163/2020)
29. Km Dimple Verma (Applicant No. Petitioner No. 4 (W.P
34) 601/2020) 2.8. These 29 applicants seek quashing of their termination orders, reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages.
3. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the applicants are challenging the impugned impugned orders dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018 passed by various Divisional Superintendents of the Department of Posts, whereby the applicants were removed from the list of selected candidates for the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (PA/SA) for tthe recruitment year 2013 2014 2013-2014 on the allegation of malpractice in the examination conducted by CMC Ltd. The grievance of the applicants is that their selection and subsequent appointments were cancelled arbitrarily and mechanically, despite there being no credible evidence of malpractice or unfair means.17
Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 3.1. It is further submitted that pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.02.2014 issued by the Department of Posts, the applicants appeared in the written examination held on 27.04.2014, consisting of Paper Paper-I (Aptitude Test) and Paper-II Paper II (Typing/Computer Test). After evaluation, they were declared successful and appointed to the posts of PA/SA in Pay Band ₹5200 5200-20200 with Grade Pay ₹2400, 2400, and they duly joined their respective postings.
However, vide letter dated dated 23.12.2015, the result of the examination was cancelled by the competent authority.
Aggrieved candidates approached approached different benches of this Tribunal. The CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, by order dated 18.03.2016, quashed the cancellation, but the Hon'ble Gujarat at High Court, vide judgment dated 16.08.2016, upheld the cancellation. The matter ultimately reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Ors. (supra) , wherein the Court, vide order dated 13.07.2017, held that the entire ex examination was not vitiated and directed that only those candidates specifically found guilty of malpractice could be proceeded against, 18 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 while others should be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages.
3.2. Pursuant to the above judgment, ffresh show-cause notices were issued to the applicants alleging use of whitener, overwriting, or wrong bubbling of roll/registration numbers. The applicants explained that such minor clerical lapses were inadvertent and not acts of malpractice or fraud. Despite Despite this, the Department terminated their services without any departmental inquiry, and without furnishing CCTV footage, invigilator reports, or CFSL authentication, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3.3. It is submitted that several judicial judicial pronouncements have consistently held that minor errors or technical lapses in OMR sheets do not constitute malpractice. In Kritika Raj Commission, O.A. No. 1413/2015 (CAT, v. Staff Selection Commission, PB), upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4519/2016 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 25206/2016, it was held that inconsequential mistakes No. 25206/2016, in roll number or bubbling cannot justify disqualification.
19Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 Similarly, in Sh. Sukhvinder v. Union of India India, O.A. No. 2001/2022 (CAT, PB), termination based on a CFSL report of signature mismatch was quashed and reinstatement ordered, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 13635/2023 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No. 55733/2024 55733/2024. The same view was reiterated rei in Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. v. Union of Ors., O.A. No. 2756/2019, affirmed up to the India & Ors., Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No. 55214/2024 55214/2024. The Delhi High Court in Kusum Gupta v. DSSSB DSSSB, W.P.(C) No. 1282/2025,, and the Madras High Court in T. Vellisubbaian v. Director, Department of School Education,, W.P.(MD) No. 2406/2015 2406/2015, have also held that minor errors in OMR filling cannot defeat a candidate's rightful selection.
3.4. It is further submitted that under RTI, the Department itself admitted that that one similarly placed candidate, against whom similar allegations of whitener and overwriting were made, was reinstated after representation, thereby making the present action discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the 20 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 Constitution. The applicants, applicants, all of whom were young and meritorious at the time of appointment, have now become overaged and face irreparable loss due to arbitrary termination.
3.5. In the concluding paras of the written submissions it is submitted that in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the impugned termination orders are illegal, arbitrary, and violative violative of natural justice. The applicants are entitled to reinstatement with full consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, and back wages, as per the principles affirmed in Monu Tomar (supra) and subsequent judicial precedents.
4. Opposing pposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was neither any arbitrariness nor unreasonableness in the manner in which the applicants' representations and explanations were examined. Each case, learned counsel argue argued, was considered on its own facts and merits before arriving at the conclusion that malpractice had indeed taken place.
21Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets of the applicants were tampered with and required manual evaluation/human interference, even though such sheets were meant to be processed entirely by automated scanning. It was asserted that the scanning system could not have read or processed the OMR sheets in question.
The learned counsel for the respondents emphasized that the instructions governing the examination were unambiguous and were printed in both Hindi and English for the candidates' clear understanding. These instructions categorically prohibited the use of whitener, overwritin overwriting, or any alteration in the OMR sheets and explicitly stated that any deviation would render the answer sheet invalid and unfit for evaluation. Despite this, the applicants had violated the prescribed norms, which went beyond minor errors and constituted acts acts of manipulation.
4.2. In support of respondents' stance, the learned counsel placed reliance on several judicial precedents including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Another v. A. Kalaimani & Others (Civil Appeal 22 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 Nos. 6190-6201 6201 of 2019), wherein it was held that violation of examination instructions amounts to malpractice and cannot be condoned. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Kadambinee & 60 Others v. State of Uttar P Pradesh & Another (Special Appeal No. 379/2016), which reiterated that even technical deviations from the prescribed examination procedure could vitiate the integrity of the selection process.
4.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents ts submitted that the impugned orders were issued after following due process and after providing each applicant a fair opportunity to respond to the show show-cause notices. Since the OMR sheets themselves reflected clear evidence of manipulation and violation of instructions, the decision to terminate the applicants' services was both justified and in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar & Others v.
Union of India & Others (supra).
23Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 4.4. In the written submission filed on be behalf of the respondents it is submitted that tthe PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination (2013-14) (2013 14) was conducted by M/s CMC Ltd., an outsourced agency, in two parts -- the Aptitude Test and the Computer Skill Test. Subsequent vigilance investigations revealed grave irregularities, including leakage of question papers, impersonation, and use of unfair means across several postal circles, including Haryana. In view of these findings, the competent authority held that the examination process stood vitiated and consequently sequently cancelled the entire examination, terminating the services of candidates under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. (supra), ), it was ordered that those found indulging in malpractices be proceeded against, while those not suspected of wrongdoing be reinstated with 50% back wages, subject to verification. In compliance, a scrutiny committee examined the records of 199 terminate terminated officials in Haryana Circle. Of these, 51 candidates were reinstated, whereas 37, including the present applicants, 24 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 were denied reinstatement due to serious irregularities in their OMR sheets, such as incorrect bubbling in identification columns, tampering, tampering, and use of whitener.
These defects made computerized evaluation impossible, necessitating manual checking, which is impermissible and indicative of malpractice. The respondents further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicants ing Kritika Raj & Ors. (supra)
-- including (supra), Kusum Gupta vs DSSSB (supra), (supra) Sukhwinder Singh vs UOI (supra), and Sanjeev Kumar vs UOI (supra) -- were inapplicable as those cases did not pertain to outsourced OMR OMR-based examinations or proven malpractices. In support of their stand, the respondents relied upon a series of judicial precedents, including Rohit Chauhan vs Union of India & Ors.,, OA No. 4516/2015, CAT (PB), decided on 22.03.2023;
Ors., OA No. 3898/2017, CAT (PB), Anit Mann vs GNCTD & Ors., decided on 08.08.2024; Om Prakash akash Paswan vs State of Bihar & Ors., Ors , CWP No. 6890/2020, Patna High Court, decided on 13.01.2021; Kadambinee & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Pradesh, Service Appeal No. 379/2016, Allahabad High Court, decided on 31.05.2016; The Chief Postmaster 25 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 General, Telangana Telangana Circle vs Guduru Raja Surya Praveen & Ors., Ors. Writ Appeal No. 1369/2018, Hyderabad High Court, decided on 19.08.2021; Karnataka Public Service Commission vs B.M. Vijaya Shankar Shankar, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 206; State of Tamil Nadu vs G. Hemlata Hemlata, Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019, decided on 08.10.2019; and Union of India vs Mahender Singh, Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2022. It is submitted that the the consistent judicial view emerging from these authorities is that wrong bubbling, overwriting, manual tampering, tampering, or use of whitener on OMR sheets are not minor irregularities but serious defects that vitiate the sanctity of evaluation and disqualify the candidate from consideration. It was further clarified that candidates reinstated by the Department had not committed ommitted errors affecting the computer computer-readable portions of their OMR sheets; their discrepancies were minor minor. In conclusion, the respondents submitted that the applicants' selection stood tainted by malpractice and irregular manual evaluation. Accordingly, the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
dismissed 26 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5.1 The records of the case were also produced by the respondents for our perusal, perusal, which have been duly examined by us.
5.2 We further take note of the fact that in W.P.(C) 13341/2019 & CM APPL. 54188/2019, CM APPL.
36135/2021, CM APPL. 2835/2025 and connected batch cases, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter to this Tribunal for reconsideration with the following observations:
"2. As the learned Tribunal has given no reasons for its conclusion, which is contained in paragraph 6, apart from stating that they have followed the judgment of Supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, the order cannot be sustained
3. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The OA shall be restored back to its original number and sha shall be considered afresh by the learned Tribunal on its merit.
4. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 19th August, 2025.
5. We are informed that there were a total of 34 applicants before the learned Tribunal, out of whom only 28 have challenged hallenged the impugned order before us in form of these writ 27 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 petitions. The consideration of the O.A. shall, therefore, be confined by the learned Tribunal only for these 29 writ petitioners; the order having become final for the remaining 5.
The above direction direction is being passed for the reason that the recruitment process in question was of the year 2013 2013-14 and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is dated 31.10.2019; to reopen the matter for those who did not challenge the order of the learned Tribuna Tribunal, therefore, would not be advisable.
6. Keeping in view the above, we further request the learned Tribunal to make endeavour to dispose of the O.A. within a period of three months of its first listing before it."
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 In Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar, Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"7. Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of the list of other candidates, which would have been more unfair and unjust, are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice.
well-recognised It cannot be equated with a case where a student is found copying in the examination or where an inferen inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of several candidates or where he is charged with misconduct or misbehaviour. The direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer boo book. Once it was violated, the issue of bona fide or honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even if not specifically provided, did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary, nor did it amount to denial of equal equ opportunity -- rather, the reverse may be true. The Tribunal appears to have been swayed by principles applied by this Court where an examinee is found 28 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 copying or using unfair means. But in doing so, the Tribunal ignored a vital distinction -- that there may be cases where the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power or by the absence of any expectation that hearing shall be afforded. The rule of hearing has been construed strictly in academic disciplines, and it must be construed e even more strictly in cases where an examinee is competing for a Civil Service post. The very nature of the competition requires it to be fair, above board and confidence confidence-inspiring. If this is ignored, it is not only against public interest but also erodes the social sense of equality. The Tribunal, in issuing directions, approached the matter technically and attempted to make out much where it would have been the better part of discretion to refuse interference. The Tribunal completely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion, its order cannot be maintained."
6.2 In the factual matrix of the case, as highlighted above, it is not in dispute that fresh show show-cause notices were issued to the applicants alleging the use of whitener, overwriting, or incorrect incorrect bubbling of roll/registration numbers. The applicants explained that such minor clerical lapses were inadvertent and did not amount to acts of malpractice or fraud. Despite this explanation, the Department terminated their services without conducting any departmental inquiry and without furnishing CCTV footage, invigilator reports, or CFSL authentication, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The present case, therefore, has to be examined in light of the fact that the impugned memorandum/office memorandum/office order dated 29 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 11.01.2018/12.01.2018 was issued pursuant to the observations made in Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,(supra), Ors. , which pertained to the same examination and selection process in question.
6.3 Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.02.2014 issued by the Department of Posts, the applicants appeared in the written examination held on 27.04.2014, comprising Paper Paper-
I (Aptitude Test) and Paper-II Paper II (Typing/Computer Test).
Upon evaluation, they were declared declared successful and appointed to the posts of PA/SA in Pay Band ₹5200-20200 with Grade Pay ₹2400, 2400, and they duly joined their respective postings. However, by letter dated 23.12.2015, the result of the said examination was cancelled by the competent authority.
ty. Aggrieved by this action, several candidates approached different Benches of this Tribunal. The CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, by order dated 18.03.2016, quashed the cancellation; however, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, by judgment dated 16.08.2016, upheld the same. The matter ultimately reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), wherein, by order dated 13.07.2017, the Court held that 30 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 the entire examination was not vitiated and directed that only those candidates specifically specifically found guilty of malpractice could be proceeded against, while the others were to be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages.
6.4 The operative directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar (supra) were as under:
"We make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to take action against those persons who have violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared in more than one centre. Such violations will also be treated as malpractice.
We further make it clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters. However, we also make it clear that those candidates who have not completed the course but were in the process of completing the course un until the impugned action was taken may be permitted to complete the course/training provided they are not suspected of any malpractice."
6.5 Illustratively, reference may be made to the impugned memo/order dated 11.01.2018 issued to Applicant No.1, Shri Ajay S/o Satya, particularly particularly paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof, which reads as under:
"4. While checking the record said sh. Ajay has been found indulged indulged in malpractices as he has marked invalid registration number in serial no 3 and also in corresponding bubbles of OMR sheet and this case has 31 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 also been pointed out in the Directorate Vigilance report under para no. 2.3.8. Thus, violated the instruction instructions under point no. 2 of reverse side of the OMR sheet. Thus, it appeared that the said Sh. Ajay had indulged in malpractices.
5. Accordingly, a show cause notice was served to the said Sh. Ajay vide this office memo of even no dated 17.11.2017 to intimate as to why his name may not be deleted from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013 2013-14."
6.6 Similar orders were issued to all the applicants on identical lines.
6.7 We find that the said memos ha have been issued in disregard of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar (supra). The respondents have not established that the applicants indulged in any malpractice such as appearing in more than one examination centre.
Hence, the applicants' applicants' cases do not fall within the ambit of malpractice. On this short point alone, the respondents have failed to make out any case of wrongdoing. Moreover, Monu Tomar (supra) categorically held that only candidates specifically found guilty of malpractice could be proceeded against, while others must be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages. The burden of 32 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 proof rested upon the respondents to establish that the applicants indulged in such malpractice. The show show-cause notices and impugned orders are silent on this aspect, despite the explicit directions of the Apex Court. There is no allegation of impersonation or misrepresentation by the applicants that could justify such drastic action.
6.8 The respondents have failed to establish, by any cogent material, that the applicants indulged in "malpractice." The burden of proving malpractice is heavy and cannot rest on mere suspicion or conjecture.
6.9 In Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025; SLP (Civil) No No(s). 26860- 26863 of 2023 -- Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v.
Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.) & Ors., Ors., decided on 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
33Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 "36. There is also an urgent need to discourage the mechanical application of cancellation orders affecting large groups of appointees without differentiation.
Service jurisprudence in India must evolve to reflect a nuanced, fact-specific fact specific approach that separates the legally sustainable appointments from thothose that are vitiated. It is neither just nor desirable to extinguish the careers of deserving employees merely for administrative convenience or to avoid the labour of segregation. A practice of indiscriminately declaring entire batches of appointments as void undermines not only the morale of sincere employees but also the credibility of the public administration. This Court deems it necessary to underscore that in all future cases of large large-scale appointment irregularities, authorities and courts must mandatorily consider the possibility of segregation and mandatorily 19 apply the doctrine of severability before taking the extreme step of cancellation.
37. Courts, therefore, must exercise heightened care and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments. The doctrine of severability must not be relegated to a post-
post-facto exercise; it ought to inform the judicial inquiry from the threshold. Early Early- stage discernment of whether appointments can be segregated based on sanctioned strength, elig eligibility, and absence of wrongdoing, enables the court to preserve what is lawful while excising only what is vitiated. Such an approach aligns with constitutional morality, protects institutional credibility, and ensures that administrative missteps do not culminate in judicial overcorrection.
6.10 In cases based on circumstantial evidence, courts must guard themselves against the danger of basing conclusions on mere suspicion, however strong it may be.
ex v. Hodge, (Rex Hodge (1838) 2 Lew 227; Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Pradesh [1952] SCR 1091).
34Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 6.11 In Criminal Appeal No. 3977 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9317 of 2025) 2025 Vandana vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 11.09.2025,, it has been observed Maharashtra, as under:
"It is apt to mention that it is well-established we established principle of law that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof.
9. Secondly, the court below have rested essentially on visual inference of overwriting to hold tampering stood established. No handwriting or forensic forensic expert opinion was obtained regarding the authorship of alleged tampering. This court in Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, Pradesh1, has observed:
"10. Evidence of the identity of hand writing receives treatment in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act also makes relevant the opinion of a hand writing expert ((S.
45) or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person
45) who is said to have written a particular writing. Thus, who besides direct evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method ((S. 73) is comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.
11.Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience, In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the 35 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 disputed one, not to becorof v an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This appraise comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only 1 (1966) SCC OnLine SC 55 when it has satisfied itself on iits own observation that it is safe to accept the, opinion whether of the expert or other witness."
10. While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been made in the presence of a witness, non-examination examination of an expert or any other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution. Therefore, herefore, the courts below treated "apparent overwriting" as conclusive which approach is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt."
6.12 In the present case, there are no specific allegations against the applicants sufficient to reach a definit definite conclusion of malpractice. The rejection of their representations has been made in a cryptic manner, with only generic observations such as "wrong roll number,"
"use of whitener," or "invalid bubbling," without any corroborative evidence. These reasons, being wholly conjectural and unsupported by material proof, cannot 36 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No. 1671/2018 sustain the drastic penalty of termination. Moreover, it is noted that the applicants' OMR sheets were duly evaluated and their names appeared in the merit list. When the career of a candidate candidate is at stake, the Court must act with circumspection and insist on corroboration through reliable direct or circumstantial evidence before concluding that there was large-scale large scale malpractice or use of unfair means.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1 In view of the detailed analysis and discussion above, we hereby quash and set aside the speaking orders/memos dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018 issued to the respective applicants. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants with all consequential consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7.2. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/