Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Ji Yadav vs M/O Defence on 27 April, 2026
O.A./1288/2016
(Reserved on 09.04.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.1288 of 2016
th
Pronounced on this the 27 Day of April, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
1. Ram Ji Yadav a/a 53 years, S/o Shri Mangal Prasad, R/o H.No. 9,
Sujatganj, PO-COD Kanpur, Kanpur.
2. Dasrat Singh a/a 55 years, S/o Nepal Singh, R/o Vill & Post-
Rawatpur- Chawdhriyan, Kanpur Dehat.
3. Abdul Saleem a/a 53 years, S/o Abdul Rahman, R/o A-251,
World Bank Colony, Pokhpur, Jajmau, Kanpur.
4. Sailendra Kumar Chaturvedi a/a 52 years, S/o Ram Abhilash
Chaturvedi, R/o 226/1, Safipur, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur.
5. Arjun Kumar Sharma a/a 53 years, S/o Sada Shiv Sharma, R/o H.
No.217, COD Colony, Koyla Nagar, Kanpur.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri M.K. Upadhyay
Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Versus
1- Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government
of India, New Delhi.
2- Director General of Ordinance Services, Army Head Quarter, New
Delhi.
3. General Officer Commanding in Chief, Head Quarter Central
Command, Lucknow.
4- General Officer, Commanding, Head Quarter-6, Mountain Division,
Bareilly.
5- Commandant, Central Ordinance Depot, G.T. Road, Kanpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 1 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order notification dated 22-04-2016 only in respect of the post pertain to the applicants.
B. Issue a suitable order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to direct the respondents to permit the applicants to discharge his duties and pay salary and other benefits with all consequential benefits and further be pleased to direct the respondents to issue appointment letters to the selected applicants as per list dated 20-12-1997 and this may be treated in service from that date with all consequential benefits.
C. Issue any other and further writ, order or directions;
which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicants had applied against the vacancies released by the Army Head Quarter vide order dated 30.08.1996 for 68 Majdoor, order dated 20.09.1996 for 20 Fireman and the order dated 10.10.1996 for 2 Messenger in the Central Ordinance Depot, Kanpur. Thereafter, some of the applicants were allowed to join in their respective posts for which they were selected. In the meantime, some complaints were lodged with the allegations that irregularities were committed in the selections to these posts. The C.O.D. Majdoor Sangh had assailed the selection list by filing a CMWP No.2121/1998 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide an order dated 20.01.1998. On 03.03.1998 an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the alleged inquiry and it submitted the report on 16.05.1998 that the allegations were false and mischievous. Thereafter, respondent no.2 gave permission/sanction for issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates. The Army Headquarter vide letter dated 21.05.1998 gave clearance to issue appointment letters. 27 appointment letters were processed and signed by the commandant on 26.05.1998 and they were dispatched by registered post on the same day. Some of the Digitally successful candidates appeared on 27.05.1998 and reported for MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 2 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 joining duties. However, on 29.05.1998, respondent no.5 directed that the applicants have to await further instructions as advised to them by the higher authorities. Some of the applicants were not allowed to join and some denied work permission whereas others were not even issued/allowed to join as various complaints were received against the selection proceedings and the army headquarter vide telex order dated 27-05- 1998 directed to keep the appointments in abeyance until further orders. The telex message was followed by letter No. AHQQ No.370726/05-14 dated 27-05-1998. Aggrieved by this action of the army headquarters several applications have been filed in this tribunal for quashing the order dated 27-05-1998 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the selected candidates to discharge their duties and to pay their salary and other benefits admissible against their posts w.e.f. 26-05-1998. It has also been prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to issue appointment letters to remaining selected candidates as per list dated 20-12-1997 and they may be treated in service.
3. Earlier the applicants filed Original Application before this Tribunal and on this issue, the leading O.A No. 917/98 along with connected matters, was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2000. The operative para of the order dated 03.08.2000 is quoted below:-
"For the reasons stated above, though we do not find any merit in the O.As and all the applications are being dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to conclude the Court of enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously, in any case within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is filed before the authority competent in this regard. There will be no order as to costs."
Against the above order, a writ petition No. 51882/2000 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed on 26.05.2011. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court had observed as under: -
"On 3.4.2002, this Court had directed the respondents to inform the Court whether the Court of enquiry was concluded. Shri P.N. Shukla sought several adjournments. On 12.12.2006, after a Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 3 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 period of four year, the Court observed that on the next day the illness slip will not be accepted. The case was again adjourned on several dates and that on 11.1.2011, the counsel for respondents was reminded that he has not yet informed the Court whether the Court of enquiry has been concluded and any report was submitted."
In the final conclusion the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: -
"The Tribunal examined the enquiry report and found that there were complaints of serious irregularities in the selections The officers in the Army had enquired into the matter and prima facie found that the persons selected should not be given appointments. The Court of enquiry was to be held against the officers responsible for causing irregularities against the members of selection board has not been concluded. The petitioners do not get any right to be appointed. The Committee consisting of a Major General and two Brigadiers had completed the investigation and were of the view that the selection proceedings suffered from gross irregularities. The allegations and the opinion of the senior officers in the Army was sufficient to withhold appointments. The writ petition dismissed."
Against the aforesaid order dated 26.05.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the applicants approached the Hon'ble Supreme court by filing Special Appeal No.29400/2011 which was dismissed on 17.11.2015 with the following order:-
"We do not find any merit in this petitioner. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of."
4. During the pendency of the above Special Appeal one Shri Jwala Prasad Yadav sought some information under the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of appointments. The respondents letter dated 25-10-2013 and 13-07-2012 sent to Shri Jwala Prasad Yadav alongwith the letter dated 18-05-2005 as well as Ministry of Defence letter dated 10-05-2005 in which it was proved that all the officers who were assailed in the aforesaid selection were exonerated and it was further ordered that all the selectees should withdraw the court cases and appointment be given to all the selectees to meet the end of justice. Some of the selected candidates filed representations before respondent no.5 on 21.03.2016 in which they quoted para 6 of army HQ letter dated 18.05.2005 by which the said HQ directed that appointment be given to all the selectees to meet the ends of Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 4 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 justice. Pursuant to the aforesaid representation, respondent no.5 passed an order dated 20.04.2016 (wrongly mentioned as 20.04.2015 in the order) and thereafter vide the impugned notification dated 22.04.2016, the respondents notified the aforesaid vacancies of Majdoor, Fireman and Messenger to freshly fill up the aforesaid vacancies from which the applicants are aggrieved as they had already been selected.
5. On 13.07.2016, an interim order was passed in O.A./873/2016 and 22 posts were directed to be kept vacant while the respondents were given the liberty to proceed with the notification dated 22.04.2016. This matter being based on similar facts and issues as in O.A./873/2016, this Tribunal vide its order dated 05.10.2016 directed the respondents to keep five posts vacant as an interim measure.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that no malpractice has been proved to have happened in the said selection. He argued that all the concerned officers responsible for completion of the selection process viz. Maj. RPS Rai, Maj. JS Gulati, Maj. R Nagpal, Capt. Tarun Prashar, Lt. Anubha Rathore all have been promoted to the post of Lt., Col, Col, Maj and Capt respectively in the year 2005. Therefore, only the applicants before this Tribunal got victimised without assigning any reason whatsoever, while the other responsible persons have been rewarded as there was no malpractice found at any stage during the course of selection process. Thus, he argued that the impugned order passed on 20-04-2016 (which is wrongly been mentioned as 20-04-2015) is non speaking and without reason which is not sustainable in eye of law because it is admitted position that on 18-05-2005 the Army HQ have clearly written that appointment be given to all the selectees to meet the end of justice and the aforesaid order came in the knowledge of the applicant only by way of RTI in the year of 2013. On 22-04-2016, the respondents notified the aforesaid vacancies of Majdoor, Fireman and Messenger to fill up the aforesaid vacancies in which the Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 5 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 applicants has already been selected and some of the appointment letters have also been issued and it is admitted position till date the appointment letters issued by the respondents have not been cancelled. In such a situation the notification dated 22-04-2016 issued by the respondents is liable to be quashed.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the impugned notification No.44149/Recruit/Estt(Cell-01) published in newspaper dated 23.04.2016 regarding filling up of vacancies of different cadres do not have any relation to the vacancies of Recruitment year 1997 because the vacancy in which the applicants were selected is of 1995-96 and the present recruitment notification is for vacancies of 2010 onwards. The vacancies/posts of 1997 recruitment stands curtailed due to cut in manpower as a result of down-sizing and modernization of Central Ordnance Depot. In this connection respondent no.2 has already issued a letter dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure CA-1).
8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the selected candidates for the vacancies released for the year 1997 which includes the applicants was withheld on the direction of the Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army) New Delhi because of allegations about malpractice and irregularities. In the meantime, 27 appointment letters were issued on which two candidates joined their duties and performed duties for two days. These two candidates were also not allowed to perform their duties on subsequent days without issuing any notice and a high level court of inquiry was ordered to investigate the matter. The high level Staff Court of Inquiry was established to inquire charges of procedural mistakes which may or may not have been deliberate. Major irregularities suggest that the entire recruitment process was conducted in a manner which was not above board and could have been for consideration other than purely merits. On the findings and recommendations of the court of inquiry, directions were given to take disciplinary/administrative action against the officers Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 6 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 responsible for these lapses and had recommended to cancel the selection boards.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that it is a settled preposition of law that mere selection does not confer any right for being given an appointment letter. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs Dilbagh Singh and others (1993) 1 SCC 154, reiterating the legal position held that:-
"A candidate who find a place in the selected list as a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him to such appointment. It was held that even if the candidate has legitimate expectations of being appointed due to his mane finding a place in the selected list of candidates, he cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona-fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily".
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case, the entire selection has been found to be full of procedural irregularities and was far from satisfactory. In Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur a large number of vacancies of different cadres occurred due to superannuation of the employees of different cadres during the last ten years, and after Integrated Headquarters' direction, Respondent no.5 issued vacancy Notification No.44149/Recruit/Estt(Cell-1) in the "Employment New" 23-29 Apr 2016 and "Dainik Jagran" dated 23 Apr 2016 calling for applications against 13 categories of posts. In this connection it is submitted by the respondents that the earlier recruitment of 1997 was canceled on the findings and recommendations of staff court of inquiry, the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Headquarters Central Command has given directions to take disciplinary/administrative actions against the officers responsible for these lapses and had recommended to cancel the selection boards. After that the numbers of selected candidates have filed a number of Original Applications before this Tribunal which was dismissed, and the order of this Tribunal has also been challenged through Writ No. 51882/2000 by the applicants before Hon'ble High Court Allahabad, which was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 7 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 Court Allahabad vide order dated 26.05.2011. In Writ Petition No. 51882/2000, Hon'ble High Court Allahabad also stated that:-
"The Tribunal examined the inquiry report that there were complaints of serious irregularities in the selection. The officers in the Army had enquired into the matter and prima facie found that the persons selected should not be given appointments. The Court of inquiry was to be held against the officers responsible for causing irregularity against the members of the selection board has not been concluded, the petitioners do not get any right to be appointed. The committee consisting of a Major General and two Brigadiers had completed the investigation and were of the view that the selection proceedings suffered from gross irregularities. The allegations and the opinion of the senior officers in the Army was sufficient to withhold appointments."
During the period the case was referred to the Ministry of Defence (Army), New Delhi fully explaining each and every aspect including the humanitarian ground. The Army Headquarters, New Delhi being competent authority, directed respondent No. 5 vide letter No. A/24303/Ram Janam/171/OS-8C(ii) dated 18.08.2006 that, "the department will not be able to appoint them due to downsizing and modernization resulting in manpower cut. The copy of the letter was also filed before Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in Writ Petition No.51882 of 2000 which has been dismissed by Hon'ble Court (Annexure CA-1).
11. It is also submitted that irregularities as reported by Staff Court of Enquiry itself justifies the action, paragraph 5 of their opinion is as under:-
(a) That the then Commandant permitted Presiding Officers of both boards i.e. Major R Nagpaul and Major RPS Rai to keep the original mark sheet filled in pencil in their personal custody. These were official documents, which should have been in custody of Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur.
(b) That the then Commandant failed to have various complaints examined in detail even though he was aware of the sensitivity of the issue.
(c) That the then Commandant insisted on approving the Board Digitally proceedings despite certain irregularities being brought to his MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 8 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 notice by the Administrative Officer without a proper and thorough investigation.
(d) That the then Commandant displayed a lack of judgment and abdicated his responsibilities in allowing the Presiding Officers to hold up the Board Proceedings in the manner they did and approving it.
(e) That the then Commandant attempted to influence junior officer i.e. Shri U.B. Singh to render an investigation report without detailed investigation of the incident of 12.01.1998 involving two union leaders and security personnel.
(f) That the then Commandant failed to lay down a uniform policy for issue of appointment letters to successful candidates which would have ensured no unfair advantage to any individual.
(g) That one of the Presiding Officers did not involve the members in awarding marks in the various tests.
(h) That the marking of various tests were done with pencil.
(i) That the original mark sheet (Working Sheet) was kept in the personal custody of the Presiding Officer.'
(j) That the Original Working sheet was not attached with the Board Proceeding.
(k) That the original marks sheet as well the photocopy was destroyed by the Presiding Officer.
In this context it is also submitted that after perusal of paragraph No.5, Note No. 13 of case No. B/Gen/13101/RJV/171/OS-8C(ii) dated 18 May 2005 (Annexure No.-A-8 to the original application at page 110 of the paper book), it is crystal clear that only eight officers out of thirteen officers (five Army officers and three civilian officers) have been promoted, whereas, the Army Commander, Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow has awarded his Severe Displeasure to the thirteen officers (ten Army officers and three civilian officers). A high level Staff Court of Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 9 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 Enquiry was conducted at Headquarters U.P. Area, Bareilly to investigate into the matter to ensure fairness in the selection which is under the administrative control of Respondent No. 3 as per organizational cycle of India Army. As per opinion of the Staff Court of Enquiry, malpractice in the recruitment in the form of payment of bribe have not been proved in any manner but the entire selection was found to be full of procedural mistakes and irregularities and Staff Court of Enquiry presided by a Major General recommended to cancel the selection on the ground that the instant selection lacked transparency and was subject to manipulation. On the findings and recommendations of staff court of enquiry, the GOC-in-C, Central Command, Lucknow had given direction to take disciplinary/administrative actions against the officers responsible for these lapses. As per direction of the GOC-in- C, Central Command, Lucknow, the officer Major RPS Rai, Presiding Officer of the recruitment board of Mazdoor was punished by respondent and his promotion was stopped by respondent against which Major RPS Rai has exhausted the departmental channels of remedy as provided under Army Act for making appeals to the Chief of Army Staff, and Chief of Army Staff quashed the order of punishment and Major RPS Rai promoted on the post of Lt Col. As per the order of General S Padmanabhan, Chief of Army Staff, this is not proved that the entire selection was fair. The averment of the applicants that full opportunity was not given to them is nothing but tact to colour the present O.A. It is highlighted that the senior officers i.e. Brigadier HPS Bains the then Commandant COD Kanpur, Lt Col SC Bhola the then Officiating Administrative Officer COD Kanpur, Lt Col Kamal Ahmad and Capt Neeti Prakash the then Personnel Officer COD Kanpur were also punished in the case of irregularities in recruitment held at COD Kanpur.
12. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record as well as the written submission of learned counsel for the applicant.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 10 of 18 O.A./1288/2016
13. The applicants vehemently rely on the letter of the Lt. Col Jt Dir/OS (Pers dated 18.05.2005 which states as under:-
6. Considering all the facts and delay in finalizing the court case a liberal & impartial consideration is solicited from Min of Def. Since none of the selectees are at fault and are also ready to render affidavits that they will be withdrawing their cases subjudice in Hon'ble High Court Allahabad as the financial crunch have crippled them to contest on going court case.
7. In view of the above, it is recommended that all the selectees should withdraw the court cases and appointment be given to all the selectees to meet the end of justice.
8. Submitted for orders/direction please.
14. Pursuant to the above letter, a representation was filed by the selected candidates to give them joining. However, it must be noted that the above letter only 'recommended' that appointment be given to all the selectees to meet the ends of justice which should not be treated as a final direction to appointment itself. Further, while some of the staffs involved in the selection process have been stated to be exonerated/acquitted/promoted, the entire selection process itself has nowhere been admitted to have been declared fair and the finding of the inquiry as mentioned in the very letter dated 18.05.2005 is that "There are too many procedural mistakes which may or may not have been deliberate. Major irregularities suggest that the entire recruitment process was conducted in a manner which was not above board and could have been for consideration other than purely merits." As the selection process was found to be tainted, merely appearing on a merit list or being selected for a public post does not grant an indefeasible or vested right to employment. While selection makes a candidate eligible, the appointing authority is not obligated to appoint them if they have bona fide reasons not to fill vacancies. Hon'ble Apex Court has given various rulings regarding the above fact, for instance, in Civil Appeals No. 136 of 2020 with No. 137 of 2020 Mohd. Rashid v Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and Others (2020) 2 SCC 582, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 11 of 18 O.A./1288/2016
12. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded to an advertisement published on 12 th September, 2013. Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list. This Court held as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ; Neelima Shangla (Miss) v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jitender Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 :
1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] ." 6 (1991) 3 SCC 47
15. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in the context of this case is being discussed below:-
(i) East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010) [AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2794] which holds that Arbitrary action is liable to be quashed. The relied upon portion reads as under:-
13. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 12 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent Writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter.
14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 154, where again this Court reiterated that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non-appointment if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a malafide manner. That was also a case where selection process had been cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration upon receipt of complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which the select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board. An inquiry got conducted into the said complaint proved the allegations made in the complaint to be true. It was in that backdrop that action taken by the Chandigarh Administration was held to be neither discriminatory nor unjustified as the same was duly supported by valid reasons for cancelling what was described by this Court to be as a "dubious selection".
15. Applying these principles to the case at hand there is no gainsaying that while the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner. The least which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step in aid of a possible appointment in their favour, were entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for malafide reasons or in an arbitrary manner. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness which is an anti thesis of the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action, no matter the candidates do not have an indefeasible right to claim an appointment against the advertised posts.
............
22. Mr. Malhotra's contention that the order was passed entirely on the basis of the complaint received from the unsuccessful candidates is also of no assistance. The fact that some representations were received against the test or the procedure followed for the same could not by itself justify cancellation of the test unless the authority concerned applied its mind to the allegations levelled by the persons making the representation and came to the conclusion that the grievance made in the complaint was not without merit. If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no Digitally selection process can be finalized as those who fail to qualify MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 13 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh's case (supra). The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct. Even in Tarun K. Singh's case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Malhotra an inquiry into the complaints received against the selection process was conducted no matter after the cancellation of the examination. This Court in that view held that since the selection process was vitiated by procedural and other infirmities cancellation thereof was perfectly justified.
In para 23 of the aforesaid judgement it is held as under:-
23. That is not, however, the position in the instant case. The order of cancellation passed by the competent authority was not preceded even by a prima facie satisfaction about the correctness of the allegations made by the unsuccessful candidates leave alone an inquiry into the same. The minimum that was expected of the authority was a due and proper application of mind to the allegations made before it and formulation and recording of reasons in support of the view that the competent authority was taking. There may be cases where an enquiry may be called for into the allegations, but there may also be cases, where even on admitted facts or facts verified from record or an enquiry howsoever summary the same maybe, it is possible for the competent authority to take a decision, that there are good reasons for making the order which the authority eventually makes. But we find it difficult to sustain an order that is neither based on an enquiry nor even a prima facie view taken upon a due and proper application of mind to the relevant facts. Judged by that standard the order of cancellation passed by the competent authority falls short of the legal requirements and was rightly quashed by the High Court.
Unlike in the aforesaid case, in the present matter, inquiry has been held into the allegations and irregularities have been affirmed.
(ii) Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) [(1992) 4 SCC 477]- Doctrine of legitimate expectation. The relied upon paragraph 16 of the same reads as under:-
16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair Digitally dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 14 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We, have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in registration by introducing a new guideline. On the contrary, Mr Jaitley the learned counsel has submitted that the DDA and/or Central Government do not in- tend to challenge the decision of the High Court and the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990 has since been withdrawn. We therefore feel that in the facts of the case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to make representations against the proposed change in the guideline should have been given to the registered Group Housing Societies, if necessary, by way of a public notice.
(iii) Food Corporation of India v.Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) [(1993) 1 SCC 71] regarding fairness in state action. The applicant has referred to the following paragraph no.8 of this judgement:-
8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process.
Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.
In this regard, it must be kept in mind that any opportunity to the candidates selected through a questionable process, as is the case in the present matter, for making representation against the irregularities committed in the selection cannot be said to be a logical 'legitimate expectation'. We have already discussed why the principle of 'legitimate expectation' cannot be said to have been violated in this case. The government retains the authority to Digitally cancel, revise, or not proceed with appointments if the recruitment MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 15 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 process is compromised and in such cases the candidates selected are not required to be given an opportunity of hearing since they may be affected but they do not reserve any right of appointment.
(iv) P.Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka (1990) [1990 (1) SCC 411], wherein it has been decided that " If a candidate applies for a post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service Commission in accordance with recruitment Rules he acquires right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then existing Rules. This right cannot be affected by amendment of any Rule unless the amending Rule is retrospective in nature. In the instant case the Commission had acted in accordance with the then existing rules and there is no dispute that the appellants were eligible for appointment, their selection was not in violation of the recruitment Rules. The Tribunal in our opinion was in error in setting aside the select list pre- pared by the Commission." The factual position of this case is different as the aforesaid involves the issue of change in the provisions of an advertisement and change in rules which is not the issue involved herein.
(v) R.S.Mittal v.Union of India (1995) [1995 SCC, SUPL. (2) 230 JT 1995 (3) 417] and submitted that Arbitrary denial of appointment is impermissible. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that " 12. It is no doubt correct that a person on the select- panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select-panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select-panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgod within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 16 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified." Unlike the said case, there is no whimsical cancellation of appointment in this case which has been done after considering the findings of the court of inquiry.
16. The issue of appointment of the applicants was raised in O.A.917/1998 before this Tribunal which was dismissed on 03.08.2000 by observing that the issue does not call for interference by this Tribunal, however, respondents were directed to expedite the court of enquiry. Against the dismissal order in the O.A., the applicants had approached Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad through Writ Petition No.51882 of 2000 which also did not find any merit in the appeal of the applicants and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2011. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has clearly mentioned that there are sufficient reasons to withhold the appointment of the applicant observing that the committee had completed the investigation and were of the view that the selection proceedings suffered from gross irregularities.The matter was further taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP by the applicants which was also dismissed.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant has also mentioned the following case laws:- Asha Kaul v. State of J&K(1993); Union of India v. Upendra Singh (1994); State of Punjab v. Gurudev Singh (1991); K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. (1962) and with reference to them, he has respectively argued that Delay of administration cannot defeat selection, Administrative action must be based on valid material, Orders remain valid unless set aside by competent court and regarding Finality of proceedings. Taking into account the discussions already made herein above, these case laws lend little support to the claim of the applicants in the present case.
18. Thus, the respondents' cannot be put to question for cancelling the said selection process on the basis of the findings after due inquiry that there were too many procedural mistakes, which may or may Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 17 of 18 O.A./1288/2016 not have been deliberate. Incriminating and punishing the staff involved in the process has to be done by the department on the basis of inquiry and not awarding strict punishment to all the concerned staff or granting them career progression is not in itself an indicator of the process being fair and legal. Moreover, the applicants herein have challenged the notification dated 22.04.2016 on the ground that they had already been selected for some of the advertised posts in 1997 itself which is beyond being reasonable as the notification for filling up the posts falling vacant for various reasons till 2016 cannot be challenged merely on the ground that selections had been made on those posts in the year 1997.
19. In view of the above, if we take into account all the facts and submissions made in the matter as well as the case laws referred, we do not find any merit in the claim of the applicants and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed as such. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. Stay order stands merged with this order. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI
Page 18 of 18