Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Markanday Nath Durge Son Of Shri Manohar ... vs Union Of India Through The Chief General ... on 13 April, 2011
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH Jaipur, this the 13th day of April, 2011 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 133/2010 WITH MISC. APPLICATION NO. 270/2010 CORAM HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. Markanday Nath Durge son of Shri Manohar Murli Nandkuliyar, resident of DDC Office, DRDA, Vikas Bhawan, Nawada Collectorate, Nawada, Bihar. 2. Rajvir Singh son of Hira Lal Singh, resident of 54/10, Pura Dalele, Allahpur, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. 3. Anant Kumar son of Shri Madan Prasad Singh, resident of C/o Shri Binod Kumar Singh, East side of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Tilkamajhu Hat, Tilkamanjhu, Bhagagfur, Bihar. 4. Digvijay Mishra son of Late Shiv Prasad Mishra, resident of C/o Rajendra Kumar Jungle Tulsiram, Bicchia Khuddi, Tata, P.O. PAC Camp, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. 5. Binay Kumar son of Shri Parmeshwar Mandal, resident of C/o Parmeshwar Mandal, Post Bahadurpur, Via Sabour, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. 6. Deewakar Upadhayay son of Shri Subhash Chandra, resident of Village Amwa Bujurg, Kubernath, District Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. 7. Sushil Kumar Gupta son of Omkar Nath Gupta, resident of Jungle Hakin No. 1, P.O. Padri bazaar, District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. 8. Raj Kumar Prasad son of Shri Ishwar Deo Prasad, resident of Tarachand Lane, Sadar Bazar, Jamalpur, Munger, Bihar. 9. Ravi Shankar son of Shri Gopal Prasad, resident of D-48, P.C. Colony, Kankar Bagh, Patna, Bihar. 10.Sayed Sarfaraz Ahmed son of Shri Sayed Ali Alam, resident of 6-A-, Jungle Matadin, Padri, Bazar, District Gorakhpur. U.P. 11.Madan Kumar son of Shri Tulsi Das Choudhary, resident of Gandhi Path, Saharsa, Manoj Press Koshi (Sahrsa), Bihar. 12.Agniwesh Kumar son of Shri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Beldour, Prasad Bhawan, Khadaria, Bihar. 13.Munna Khalifa son of Shri Safir Khalipha, resident of C/o Urmila Medical Hall, at PO Anisabad, PS Gardanibagh, Patna, Bihar. 14.Sanjay Kumar son of Shri Amerika Singh, resident of C/o Amerika Singh, Road No. 04, East India Nagar, Kankar Bagh, Patna, Bihar. 15.Uday Kumar son of Shri Mahanand Singh, resident of Arishbad, Near by vaidya Jee, District Patna, Bihar. ..Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Saxena) VERSUS 1. Union of India through the Chief General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur. 2. The Chief General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur M.P. 3. Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer. ..Respondents (By Advocates: Mr. V.S. Gurjar) ORDER (ORAL)
The short controversy involved in this OA is vide notification dated 22.01.2010 by which the appointment to the post of Assistant Station Master to be made in pursuance to advertisement No. 2/2008 dated 19.04.2008 has been cancelled. The applicants were found eligible alongwith other candidates and were called for the written test conducted on 23.11.2008 and the result of the same was declared on 14.12.2008 and thereafter the Aptitude test was conducted on 15.01.2009 and 16.01.2009. Meanwhile, a group of representatives of Rajasthan Aadivasi Meena Yuva Sangathan, Ajmer gathered and agitated with regard to the selection conducted by the respondents and submitted a Memorandum dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure R/1) wherein they have prayed for cancellation of the written test conducted for selection to the post of Assistant Station Master category No. 01 in response to advertisement bearing Employment No. 2/2008 as illegal elements were indulged in violation of secrecy of the Question Paper and they have supplied the question papers to few candidates and charged handsome amount for the same. Accordingly, the matter was scrutinized and the SP, Special Operational Group, CID (CB), Jaipur, conducted an intensive investigation and it was established that secrecy of Question Papers of written test for the post of Assistant Station Master held on 23.11.2008 was violated. The Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer, apprised the Railway Board, New Delhi with the findings arrived at by the SP, Special Operational Group, CID (CB), Jaipur during the course of investigation. On the basis of the finding arrived at in view of the investigation carried out by the SP, Special Operational Group, CID (CB), Jaipur, the Railway Board, New Delhi issued instructions vide letter dated 22.01.2010 for cancellation of the written test for the post of Assistant Station Master Category No. 1 of the Employment Notice No. 2/2008 held on 23.11.2008 and Aptitude test for the same held on 15.01.2009 and 16.01.2009 in order to give justice and to provide equal opportunity to all candidates and ordered for re-notification of these vacancies of Assistant Station Master as per new methodology but it was made clear that who had already applied in response to the earlier Employment Notice No. 2/2008 need not apply afresh. Pursuant to the new advertisement, applicants alongwith other candidates appeared in the written test and the fresh selection process is in progress.
2. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. O. Chakradhar, 2002 (3) SCC 146, has held that the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.
3. The same view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others vs. Joseph P. Cherian, reported in 2005 (8) SCC 180 wherein the Honble Supreme Court in Para No. 5 has observed as under:-
5. We find that the High Courts approach is clearly indefensible. There was no challenge to the cancellation of the result in the writ petition. In fact, the High Court itself noted that on the basis of a single individuals challenge the question whether the examination in its entirety was to be nullified was not examined. Yet it granted relief to the respondent employee with clearly unsustainable directions. The High courts view appears to be that if unfair means were adopted at one centre, result of other centres should not have been cancelled. This view is wholly indefensible. The Staff Court of Inquiry recorded a finding that there were serious irregularities in the conduct of examination at Jallandhar centre and unfair means on a large scale were adopted. There was leakage of question papers and its transmission to candidates at other centres through modern modes of communication was not ruled out. Having regard to all these factors, the decision to cancel the examination was taken. When the result of 1995 examination have been cancelled, the question of the respondent employees case being considered on the basis of marks secured by him at the said examination does not arise. As is settled in a long time of decisions, while considering the case of mass malpractice there is no scope of examining an individual case (see Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Singh, AIR 1970 SC 1269, Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166, P. Ratnakar Rao v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 2523, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ajay Kumar Das, 2002 SCC (L&S) 582 and Union of India v. O Chakradhar, 2002 (3) SCC 146.
4. In view of the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court and the reports submitted by the investigation conducted by the SP, Special Operational Group, CID (CB), Jaipur, we are of the view that secrecy of the question paper of written examination for the post of Assistant Station Master held on 23.11.2008 was violated by some-one in unlawful manner and thus in the public interest, the respondents have rightly cancelled the earlier selection conducted pursuant to Employment Notice NO. 02/2008. Accordingly, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 22.01.2010 (Annexure A/1) and requires no interference by this Tribunal.
5. With these observations, the present OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. In view of the order passed in the order, no order is required to be passed in MA No. 270/2010 and the same is also dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR) (JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) AHQ