Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Subhas Chatterjee vs C L W on 8 November, 2019
ss 1 o.a. 1135.2011* o.a.:244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, 01.3^ 893.2017, m.a. 152.15> m.3; 47.15, O.a. -
232.2016,-o.a., 1365.2015, o.a. 1432v201-5, o.a. 1706.2015
.•A
!
r
i
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIS TRIBUNAL
/
/ KOLRAT BENCH, KOLRATA
1 Reserved on: 17*9.2019
i Date of order: tfg'* H-
i
i Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Present
iM Hon Tile Dr. Nandita Chatteijee, Administrative Member
■ m
m
iIK O.A. 1135 of 2011 1. Subhas Chatterjee,
. MS
hi
Son of Late Ranajit Chatteijee,
|»
! li! "Wording ^Tec^lfei^Grade -II,
•it
.3,
7
IbWfibe oT the'S^Ss eer,
Electric Loco/Shop
m
y
«irdwan;|
■». •
asafe;sidmjg at
QuarterNo >
Dist. Burdwan, Pin 713331.
3. Sri Deepak Kumar Mondial,
Son of Late Dukhan Mondal,
Aged .about 45 years,
Working; as Technician Grade -I (Welder),
T.No. 26/'896 f
Office of the Senior Section Engineer,
Electric Locd Shop-26,
f
,-r *. •».
r* * -'■i' . » tr. s .
2 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
/
/ Chittarafijajrr' Locomotive Works,
V
/ Chittaranjan, P.0 Chittaranjan, Dist-
/ Burdwan, Pin 713331,
Residing at - Street No, 30,
Quarter No. 11/B,
P.O Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan,
Pin 713331.
Sri Dinesh Prasad Singh,
Son of late Faujdar Narayan Singh,
Aged about 44 years,
Working,as..Technician Grade - II,
Section Engineer,
Works,
>
rade-uS^' ' «
Seed heer,
/
forks,
>
Son of Nifnai Chandra Mallik,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Technician Grade -II (Machinist),
• 3
T. NO. 05/246,
Office of the Senior Section Engineer,
Electric Loco Bogie, Shop- 05,
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Chittaranjan, P.O Chittaranjan,
Dist-Burdwan, Pin 713331,
Residing at Simanta Pally,
P.O Rupnarayanpur, Dist. Burdwan,
Pin 713364.
"~"~TT7Ty,T-~r W'J.'-
• / V*
/•Jr?
3 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a.. 244.2015> m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
/ 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
/ 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
7. Sri Kalyan Pal,
Son of Nripendr& Pal,
Aged about 42 years,
is Working as Technician Grade -1
(Black Smith), T. NO. 03/221, .
f®1 Office .of the Senior Section Engineer,
Smithy & Forging Shop-, 03,
P.O Chittaranjan, Dist-Burdwan,
Iff: 1 Pin 713331
*•
#• Residing at - Kulti Thana More,
\PW.i P.O Kulti, Dist. Burdwan,
r:> F' s Pin: 713343.
I 8. Sri:'Gautam?-Bagchi, ?' •
Son«of Latei Rara^^te%^undar Bagchi,
wm i!! I (Turner),
IS
m I
1
11 i
1:1
ill r£
rffi
I'fi :
ii * • :■ »i
ft#
If €
a.
■n & , ffi
if || ' !Ef*
{ mt'.
Iff'
e}.|-
[@
ft!
i'j/ii.
11 dwan.,
ii
•> I
snwar, s
Bit! Aged about 43 years,
ii;i!
Working as Technician Grade -1 (Machinist),
..ii*
i
$ei T. NO.05/215,
, Office of the Senior Section Engineer,
m Electric Loco Bogie Shop- 05,
ti& Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Dist-Burdwan,
;ii
Residing at r Street Np.84 , ■
¥\ ■;i .
m ■
Quarter No. 22/B,
P.O Chittaranjan,
I Dist. Burdwan..
f
s
si 11. Sri Soumendra Nath Kundu,
4 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893,2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Son of late Subhas Chandra Kundu,
/ Aged about 39 years,
/ Working as Technician Grade -I (Pettier),
&
T. NO. 35/655,
Office of the Senior Section Engineer,
m Fettling Shop-35 , Steel Foundry,
P.O Chittaranjan, Dist-Burdwan,
m Residing at - Street No. 88,
& Quarter No.27/A , P.O Chittaranjan,
&
Dist. Burdwan, Pin 713331.
m
--Applicants
m
Versus4 i. V
i®
m
i
a
Manager,
Works7-.
mm
iM
i
SHi
I l
m
i
1
■M
urdwan^?
lorks,
s M3331
l
11
1H :4
Li E p:hanical^|ngig.eer,
I '
1 K
i- ■ ■. :•' 1
^ocomotiy^f W>Tks,
Burdwan^*®
Hi VI t
1 Mi: J
m. •V.
-■\. . -m
SM fer (W),
comotive
If i >
l!' ■
it:
1
i -^sss;ager'Chittaranjan, Dist.. Burdwan,
i West Bengal,
1
m Pin 713331.
W
6. Sri Ajoy Kumar Choubey,
I •i Technician1 Grade-II
\%i
w •• (under ' Training for Apprentice
Mechanics Inter Stage, Mechanical),
Service through the Principal,
11 Technical Training Centre,
ll I Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
P.O. Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan,
West Bengal; , '
m i
Siili
5 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47,2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 252.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Pin 713331.
7. Sri Amitava Chakraborty,
Painter Grade - II .
(under training for Apprentice
Mechanics Inter Stage, Mechanical)
service through the Principal,
Technical Training Centre,
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, P.O-
Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan, West
Bengal, Pin 713331.
Sri Gautam Majumdar,
^ technician. Grade-I
tr for Apprentice
1&K*
seme#
Interstage, Mechanical),
Principal,
Technical in; Centre,
O.A. 244/2^
M.A. 47/201
M.A. 445/2015 ^
M.A. 893/2017
Son of Nimai Chandra Chatteijee,
Aged 46 years,
Residing at Street No. 64 ,
Quarter No. 5B, Chittaranjan,
District: Burdwan, Pin 713331,
West Bengal.
2. Subhendu Roy,.
Son of Sachidananda Roy,
Aged 50 years,
Residing at Street No. 82 ,
6 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Quarter No. 8/A,
Chittaranjan, District: Burdwan,
Pin 713331, West Bengal.
3. Aloke Kumar Singh,
Son of Sri N. K. Singh,
Aged 44 years,
Residing at Street No. 7D,
Quarter No. 4C, Chittaranjan,
District : Burdwan, Pin 713331,
West Bengal.
sad Ghosh,
s
*s
}j
|umdar,W^
n?
!
at StreikaNp.1
v ■ »
littaranj
Lw« Pin. 713
'.
-T
>)
Ls
■?.
*•:
/
;
T.K. Chatterjee,
Son of Sri Sudhir Kr. Chatterjee,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at St. No. 21 B,
Qr. 6A, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
8. H.L. Prasad, ,
Son of Late D.N. Prasad,
Aged about 42 years,
^4^
-v /-V,,
!l 3
fl mm B SB
5 M3
7 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015,.m.a. 893.2017; m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o!a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 17062015;
Residing at St. No. 42 A,
Qr. 52A, Chittaranjan 9
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
9. A.K. Chowbey,
Son of Late Nag Deo Chowbey,
Aged about 49 yeats )
Residing at St. No. 48,
Qr. 7/C, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
..,svs?-
J|0
b
.
PI
V
' T aey»
•f®
J-
1 Aged about 48
1
# St. No. f
m
rrtf
. .#
4T" F
fttaranjan,^
J
# r I
s J* %
*. 5
. $
1 m ?■
*2 *
■s $
S hm. FS j
i?
1
• II © snsj p.
f ^L.
3E0 >
j
d
p.85,: ' ' ; fc
i
•J '!«
t. .,!
te
t
t
A
p.
13. R.K. Jha, :
Son of Late Sukumar Jha,
Aged about 45 years >
Residing at St. No. 31,
Qr. 35/B, Chittaranjan, !
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
14. P.K. Tantij
Son of Sri-'Sitarazn Tanti,
I
8 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at St. No. 38A,
Qr. 72/A, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
15. R.K. Murmu >
Son of Sri Chando Murmu,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at St. No. 70,
Qr. 35 A, Chittaranjan,
....
" # Pin
*• ■m 'A
* •a $-
\ 1^6^ ' Skhjib Irf t')
Son of-Sri-T.
ft] t 43 year^P
" |L No. 30,
I.
li
Tgg
f;
'S.afc m.
3 J]
■
8
^
.?rr-;a ira.
.J
i
PS* jsBfc si
?.T mm
*aaibi»fta»fisr-
iti ose,
m
I*
sidlng^t^^So. 64, .w
2
Q 9
P
*58
Pin-7133#^
fy
^s*#fr. Stermt,
m, ofaSSS^'^iarBe
V
anout ^48^^rs^^
r. 37/^gM^^anjan,
Pin-713331. j
19. T.K. Ray,
Son of Late S. Roy,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at St. No. 82,
Qr. 22A, Chittaranjan 5
West Bengal,
i
Pin-713331.
20. M. Kumar,
Vv
9 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a, 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Son of Late N. Kumar,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at St. No. PA, .
Qr. 5A, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
21. D.K. Sahu,
Son of Late L.N. Sahu,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at St. No. 34,
Q^6A.Chittaranjan,
i.
!
aranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
r
K.K. Das,
Son of Sri D.L. Das,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Pipeline Kurmi Para,
Mihijam,
Jharkhand - 815354.
K.Rajak,
10 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47,2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47;15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706^2015
Son of Late D. Rajak,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at St. No. 87,
Qr. 48/B, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin-713331.
B.N. Das,
Son of Late D.N. Das,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at St. No. 35
'es^ttaranjan,
West engSISfca
V E K S 'U S -
m
P Union of India,
i;'! i Through the General Manager,
N
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Hi; Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan,
s
* it West Bengal,
I6 k m
w1
2.
Pin 713331.
The Chief Personnel Officer,
ft
lim
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan,
1:'
V mi- West Bengal,. Pin 713331.
I I; as-
r- i
Tr vXrTtimJt'
v; "
' f-//
..A/ 11 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
/ 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
/
3. The Chief Mechanical Engineer,
? / Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
l Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan,
West Bengal,
Pin 713331'
&
MA. 152/15 WITH M.A.47/2015 (OA 244/15)
W-4
a-
^ p |j| 1. Nand Lai Shaw,
..Son ;bf TOWSHMian Shaw,
A§e(l, ahmljeycBnfl^
V--1
iiiu^ftef
1
L 9S No^cf^ mittaj^man,
£
fit
I
«;.i:
District, Burdwan, Tm 33 m
ii
ft a |:k Applicant i % 152/15
'& 8 Sil II
II
II P i
fl IPS!
I •V' K
■i:.*
.El 6A,
Si •
M
?!
!fi
■*!5 i.
Iif HI
til
e
M. ias
sa-
rr
if
m «i
R 'll
ft
al
1 1
I1
i m ■
tj B >
m Resioi^^a^Sti NO. 42A
42A,
■\ [S3
Qr. 52A, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
I
Pin 713331.
i
'A 4. A. K. Chowbey,
'/I Son of Late Nag Deo Chowbey,
■ £-■
If Aged about 49 years,
Residing at St. No. 48,
11 Qr.7/c, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal, Pin 713331.
v.:
ia
5. N. Dubey,
m Son of Late Sitaram Dubey,
rin f |I
■if
A if-
a
12 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. .
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at St. No. 48,
Qr.l7/B, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin 713331.
6. L.K Ghouhan,
Son of Sri J. Ghouhan,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at St. No. 85,
Qr. 7/3A, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin 713331.
,^7^' Rajesh Kumar,
® -Ssaalf^ife^leifshvffiir R^sad,
a i.-
r- il
h
»r
ti e
f »
.'SSfewij
t
;
$
o
3
; f
Ii' >
i
T •
fl
3
is ll
s 'Hj,.
#^10. :^R-^K. Murmu
»: %
•i r II
Sr
>
m ^©hittaranjarLggg
i West Bengal,
!• & fm
* iXtSS
r^t
$ ' Ri 11. Sanjib Kr. Sharma,
i im Son of Sri T. Sharma,
Aged about 43 years,
*
Residing at St. No. 30,
•? i! Qr. 41/A , Chittaranjan,
m West Bengal,
M
i -j.. Pin 713331.
'I
1
j I .I! m ■A:i
i
12. Subhankar Bose,
Son .of Sri Nirmal Bose,
j • a.*
I IV W-
Aged about 48 years,
■ i' .
ae'
1
.1.
I
ft
13 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
, i
Residing at St. No. 64, Qr.5/B,
Chittaranjan, West Bengal,
Pin 713331.
13. Rajesh Kr. Sharma,
Son of Sri S. Shdrma,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at St. No. 23,
Qr. 37/B, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin'713331.
14. T. K. Ray,
Qr. 6B, Chittaranjan
Pin 713331.
S. Azam,
Son of Sri Mahettav Azam,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at St. No. 66,
Qr. 27/B, Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin 713331.
19. A. Chakraborty,
Son of Sri Badal Chakraborty,
Aged about 48 years,
rr ..:vr >>'p
; 3;;
I
7 /
V •.
14 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
& i !
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
5.^
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Residing at St. No. 41A,
Qr. 11/A , Chittaranjan,
West Bengal,
Pin 713331.
20. K. K. Das, son of Sri D.L Das,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Pipeline Kurmi Para, Mihujam,
Jharkhand -815354.
21. K. Rajak, son of Late D. Rajak,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at St. No. 87,
gr^489^B^©Mtt^r,anjan, West Bengal,
L
[:
m 1 V
: m-:
£
[.A. 47/15
■ •xv
/Union 0 dia:
the General Manager,
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW),
Chittaranjan, District' Burdwan, Pin
713331.
2. Chief Personnel Officer,
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW),
Chittaranjan, District - Burdwan,
Pin 713331.
3. Chief Mechanical Engineer,
\ 1.
m Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW),
1
M-
Chittaranjan, District -
713331.
Burdwan, Pin
%
]?-•
■r
M
W ^ :T;!
E3SS31
15 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
--Respondents.
OA. 232 of 16 Sanjay Ganguly, son of Sri B. K. Ganguly,
aged about 49 years, by profession service, residing at
Quarters No. 6/BB, P.O. 4P.S.- at Chittaranjanj
Burdwan, W.B. Pin- 713331.
Applicant.
-versus-
1,-Union of India, servic^through the General
ocomotive Works
$
!Qr 7K 31.
Chi^ ^ania]
W) Chittar; Dist-
Chittar^S
Wiittaran
: Dm-
a
leer/MfxS p v
5®
LvSVorks (CLl^I
ijr-
>
mn~ 713331.
Applicant.
-versus-
1. Union of India, service through the General
Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works
(CLW), Dist- Burdwan, Pin- 713331.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works (GLW), Chittaranjan, Dist-
Burdwan, Pin- 713331.
r *tv.'- ■f f IMT. - <5
'; ->
;A/,' >-
s >-!
r.
! • '.H -kJ
•i
»T
16 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
r 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
i 3. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works (CLW), Chittaranjan, Dist-
Burdwan, Pin- 713331.
:
4. Dy. CME(Aroj/Con/Sl & Disciplinary
fell. Authorities, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Chittaranjan, Dist- Burdwan, Pin- 713331.
: i
J
'4.
Respondents.
S: OA. 1432 of 2015 ■* ShV
i ;
\f%ti8* ipftan.
. i
I 5(yi of^Sri S. Sharma,
i iter No. 37/B t
| vi
>m,<2
'<■
% ^^siding at Stre ^
\ it
Chittaranjan (Burdwai^flL Bjteih- 713331.
l:
a h
ft ft ►licant.
st;
'll"1.
«
i!
d
P'
vi ;|
vj
h
h
k
W •Si
i :ii iBMMx
!.Ci
|J
n\ r
•:ii;k Ip'-as1 3 :ht.the fSer; \Tj r •
ir'J • If:
ip
Hi; ii'
-Q0 motive' cks ;
8S *
sll
r I*
i-'
$ :
V
r <•.' R
4
fiS SChittaranj
.** j jXhittaranj an, Dipt-
sk^ Si)h'
S^H!
Ml- Mi.-
ar o''
:i!i'
4; IISEl
1
t III
m. rf
■)
i ¥orks7t IT i
.12
to' •
sail . 7s *
KMi IJs
.E s
Sis':
:3
'i : I
S! »:
[-•) r
i;] -ii
v
Respondents. j
m
;• ■ ili
M: m
m
lr
OA. 1706 of 2015
'!!«
I m
!2:k Aloke Kumar Singh, son of Sri N> K
S'
jj ■ m Singh, aged about 44 years, residing at
wf • IfM-
SKI
Street No. 4C, Quarter No. 7D, '
r« Chittaranjan, District- Burdwan, Pin-
III Bf-: 7133-31, West Bengal.
;IS'"
ii
i-i
m
j- m
j;
fir;
17 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a/152.15, m,a. 47.15,0;a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
Applicant.
-versus-
1. Union of India, service through the ;
General Manager, Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works (CLW), Dist-: Burdwan,
Pin-713331.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Chittaranjan , .
Locomotive Works (CLW), Chittaranjan,
B^Swte^Ein- 713331.
i. dSf
:
K-i :*
k Chittaranjan
I lil I;n -»r
Is lift; v.
ll m
•*3
i;
I* 1 ffl
■ 5
; '/I
Inf
i-A I ■ 4
i
i iii
iiiil
i
i I $
il
ra,*
ii ij
3":
%
s-Jf «
;3f
iilri AT
' For tire ApplicapS?^
Is
1
ii ■ ^
p
i ' Hr% .■s
t
8P;
ili;
I
fel
IS;
I;
(O.A. 232/20*16)_^ ii.
fa ii
1
ii:
Hi
^(aA.136S/mfe8®^ 1432/2015,
O^PfapSTS and-O.A. 232/2016) .
EE
Sw, i: tA !!
•
Ii m
a* For the Respondents : . Mr. P. Bajpayee^Gounsel
m
IE' Mr. P.C. Das, Counsel
(Pvt. Respdt. In O.A; No. l 135/2011)
I Mi
i
Ii S:
m
! iii
vt;
tft
U
f ■3
f IPf
Aff! W
|:
■I m,tu
sd. 1U ■
FT
1 \ \
<3 u • / 'JB
18 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
/
. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.'a. 1706.2015
ORDER
Per Dr. Nandita Chatteriee, Administrative Member:
The primary cause of dispute in these Original Applications revolves round the notification issued by the respondent authorities dated 1.9.2008 for selection to the post of Apprentice Mechanics Inter Stage (Mechanical), empanelmeht of purportedly successful candidates ?1 i m f?
•T £"
consequent thereto, cancellation of the, said notification and declaration S' ■a of a denovo selectig]!p!fprociss_(|h®e®.'! ill -?• rj! m.
* i II! ill 2. The apMMbaMsmm±" No. 244 of ;hm 'hatterjee Zte 4 & il till ors. candidJfei &had been % |!ill IIII declare!? sl^^ssful im equehr^nol iflcation sirt date dfi.SijIfes. e the m brfcdum $ ill ?• I IS ■35 dat# f@5^2015 ted 1.9Jfc@08J|and,. l| U m ah & •: I •• ■ f a which if declared!ti ess to 'j :ra 1 Appfentic^Mechanici ,] r-.i t 4 ;
1 IC?
J|The applicants.in i.
rSubhas Chdttemee & II l 1 ors.vAn nionM Jnam d '.a.
dllbis Triffinal to rs. ) had"jointly
1.
s MM & ft
u set asidefithe w^ess consequent toi
!*LI Mate#1.9.2008
%
b 'f&S %
1' '
i
s;.;i. as well as ........
to saich selection.
|i: S$%
El
&;•
&
mI These eleven app^^ts'-^Jemanded a process, alleging
1^!
% :si e ■ several irregularities in^^^onduct^o|g|h€P^^Ren examination in the
ft
r ll
1$
¥ I ill,-
if;! m selection process that followed notification dated 1.9.2008.
m The applicsmts in O.A. No, 1365 of 2015 (Nagendra Dubey v.
r®-!: ■
&![
Union of India & ors.), O.A. No. 1432 of 2015 (Rajesh Kr. Sharma v. 41; Hi Union of India & ors.) and O.A. No. 1706 of 2015 (Aloke Kr. Singh n |l;;! I v. Union of India & ors.) and O.A. No. 232 of 2016 (Sanjoy Ganguly 'V)' v. Union of India & ors.) are purportedly successful candidates against !• t 1 U I; • m:
L-t ■ ;>■ • ) 19 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 / whom the respondent authorities are contemplating disciplinary action alleging their direct involvement in irregularities in the selection process.
Each of these applicants have approached this Tribunal challenging the initiation of such disciplinary proceedings.
3. As the primary cause of action in all these above matters are related to different facets of the selection process pursuant to notification dated 1.9.2008 culminating in its cancellation, all six O.A.s are taken up to be disposed of by on order. ^
4. 'debidld e:
i) w! er the to noa &
tdated
1 8 is ccount .eged
insularities 'V
© *
■r*
( ether the .Si .. 244/20
m an
defeasi e• re: 3®&aics, Inteff-Stage
>r
sC.
V
5.1. The prim: alle ons theisele P^l as raised by
the applicants in O.A. 135 of 2011 area iws:-
(i) That, several irregularities were detected in the written, test,
*
* evaluation and selection of Apprehtice Mechanics Inter Stage
(Mechanical). > x
(ii) As per Railway Boards Circular dated 30.8.2006 incorporated in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vql. I, objective type questions should be set for about 50% (in the range of 45% to 55%) of the total marks for the written test held as part of the selection for promotion to 'f-4 • IP t .? '■4Z£ ■ t f/ 20 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 * ^ // the post classified as "Selection" but in the aforesaid question paper, the i ! H objective type questions were not set as per the said circular of the Railway Boeird and, as such, the structure of the written test was 1^ % i^ i violative of Rules.
(iii) To illustrate the arbitrariness and illegality in evaluation, the :rH applicant state that they had obtained the evaluated answer sheets of ' NS some of the applicants upon access to RTI, and, on receipt of such m .-.vr.
answer scripts, it transpired thafe The evaljutf io s;«i •! i-:
! V #.
"False" of ^ri Su & ,/ i & bilii 144) ha#been%iarked niorfictlvhfbh h.
eH>f Ashok h& ! ir\\ i Kumrf (Rjjf||pNo. wa^s^ -s u j es^^questioEpP n « as Ifjf I !illJ M "q "Tru t also JPi iM 'Em n] i J®ting to" .bimlent 1H :J 57 i-
$ I K
lv J .
4i
5^
ev au
W:0
i '• l5I
RU
kj
ft
I; ji
I Aglal > Sri Di -•2r-"i®ii=iP0r#ctly:
fife-j :?:l! fl
! K
:!
! ^_
■':S
<
m V
£ . answered e nine que'^Ros^o c®ll#n:: .elfeli " but was four
6* ll
u
.5
i J'
fev.l ■,
B:'.; 1:1 •• markslin stead jff: a;a3 mhfM se entMed to.
Pll
|/ fe:
m:
Upon cofnp;
j
•J:
3# ansvfes of Sri Debasish •kar;
S4
feeantjfo. 2 and
F'
Sri Sanjay^umak a at bnm hs#e answered
'V
the questions ^Shri^^ijay Kumar got
Mf "•SB,,
four and half marks^iMpfeding one mark .fbj simple sketch, Sri
li: lls
t mhi li"1: mm
Debasish Sarkar got three marks. As no marks were' awarded for the sketch of Sri Debasish Sarkar, he was kept out of the panel for obtaining II 8 » I 54.5 marks, whereas had he been awarded half marks for Question No. 6 r if» Iftiis !I jt and one mark for question No. 3 (simple sketch), the said Sri Debasish ¥■ i mS i !- Sarkar would have secured 56 marks in aggregate and would have been •pi u m .t included in the panel.
,, Si .
5:' •' • I#
mb-
111
'
(
*99
•V*
S3 R3 m
t
21 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015> m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 ' i Again, both answers to questions 2(a) and 2(b) of Abid Ahmed, / € applicant No. 5, were marked as incorrect by the evaluator arbitrarily and with an ulterior motive to oust him from the zone of consideration when he deserved full marks for correct replies to such mathematical questions.
.«•«, £ In the case of Shri D.K. Mondal, applicant No. 3, four and half i *2 i marks were awarded in an arbitrary and ill motivated fashion.
w** /- •'•C''7** i?'**-
p (iv) That, with respect^to servicg. records, im ^disclosure was made •j commurucatin^the^a^^^M%^ IS i of^he applicants, M i .■ consequenrfaw.^ severely/ downgraded, J •II & select^im. |^e appli § $ obtaihe i f sen|ce ^^>rds whS^b^^;
r.r 1
&
empane flint. Sr
it
z
f 8 writiin
%
:■&
a. Mr
ination bu®*v, aJ
;.
service ;
favoriusm to
C
recorc|s, they
%
selectedlcan
%
(v) That,%he f.2011 were
not to by the^respohde ithom®s, who, on the
other hand, empanefllfeather candidates a hd them for training,
depriving the applicants of a just and merit based selection process.
5.2. The official respondents No. 1 to 5 have denied the allegations of _ the applicants in O.A*. No. 1135 of 2011 in their reply dated 9.7.2012, particularly, to state as follows:-
(i) That, the question paper was set as per rules and that the selection procedure for the impugned promotion for JE was followed as per i W-, // / 22 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a; 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
9/ \/ 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47-15, o.a. / 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 / 'General Selection' procedure as distinguished from procedure for 'Selection post'.
j7« m
(ii) Further, vide memo dated 9.4.2012, the respondent authorities m have also clarified their decision in the individual disputes raised by the £ L') applicants in O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 with regard to evaluation in the mas written test.(Annexure R-l to the reply). I'.
am 5.3. The private respondents, as impleaded in the O.A. No. 1135 of ii 2011 } $ -rp*
(i) have daime^8ia.ytf Mi 111 1' No. 29 of 2f09 (.^^fcure R-2 o£, and; £ 0w &■ 111 § alii Saally d:
i Ii11 o.aJu !SL &2011 J ij 18! (iii)l &nvate it| ! a Mm I g;
ir a--
11 apracan i'.
n O.A.
3 i
is b^om^he purview crsq iblih&:.iai@B:dicial review
m s fi l5
3!
1:II ifi 5.4. 11 ith the#T ; lli i i/a, 4k' ft, 0.2.201® and '4 #4 II ■ conseqU|nt deEy > ;j thrf post of at!« f 1in 1 14 Apprentice^ec % 4 &howejiri r.
No. 1135 il of 2011 largely%eco: as^beeaus^witliii^ffbh cancellation Sll; Pfl and declaration of de 'n ig further remains to 11 IP?
m II 1.
be adjudicated in this O.A. consequent to such actions of the respondent ii authorities. ■i:
O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous.
r 6.1. In O.A. No. 244 of 2015, the original applicants and added -
i"
rj m applicants have defended the selection process and have challenged the i 'f i i f! p! Y. ■| i;
cancellation memo dated 10.2.2015 that had directed a de novo selection >1 iil if •ft process. 44;.V' y m gfasr.fHHP^IDWkli'iriin i »i--i . -
23 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15,-O.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 The primary arguments of the applicants in O.A. No. 244 of 2015, are as follows:-
j2 (i) That, the syllabus for the said competitive examination was f:lr circulated in Paragraph 4 of the notification dated 1.9.2008.
(ii) That, pursuant to issuance of memorandum dated 1.9.2008, the
I
!»1 l
I:! selected candidates had successfully completed a 52 weeks training
iw
«
f programme, consequent to which the applicants had been finally
II! it absorbed
•I
Ui
'■U
■m
■'«
Pay Band RC ^930^
s
li;
H- their $gigh b the po
< * f?
m arbitlai^^^tion of j
'i 3i
(f
W. 244|-of^^.5 clai
)
t
m seie: ent as,
(j
: %
well any
I 4,
•{
actioriltaken ^adVe^ely affe# their
\h ■\
a.-; sub slantiial the principles -of alw^ide aim that no
! ^ ^ce
y opportunitw>f ler cqr^ntibri^as flowed to be
ii1!
} mi
^ V.. r smrn w..
raised or any opportunity of ventilating their ggi^vanc as given tb the
M m
!.
applicants who were arfritcan r*-V'
^charging their, duties.
(iv)The applicants were not aware of any alleged recommendations .of the B-r I??: ; 1
> i Vigilance Department. . • •. / !*
(v) That, the respondents, while dealing with the contentions .of: die t Ilf-
i
-) applicant in O.A. No. 1135 of 2011; had denied any irregularities in the- - r } selection process, only to contradict themselves while issuing the l i V' ft cancellation notice.
fir •w h •*» u;
mm 24 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47,2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 17Q6.201S 6.2. The applicants in O.A. No. 244 of 2015 have cited the following judicial pronouncements in support of their claim:-
(i) Union of India & ors. v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & , another 2003 SCC (L&S) 1048
(ii) Bast Coast Railway & anr. v, Mahadev Appa. Rao & ors.
(2010) 7 SCC 678.
(Hi) O.A. No. 528 of 2012 (Aamod Kumar v. Union of India 8s ors.) ti tr !5 (iv) O.AdNo a v. Union of iff ii &ilndiaMtmrs S3 1 SM ■m ■»v i-y m f %s-') .•s fS.
9 a\ m ® z^Liquiddfbr ic S! I : •-> If | a- ^ ^rLiquidazWn0^ant i«b.
e 404. £ k ■
f. Ii JA
s
Kurfvd,
a;
$;
i1 j
■;
S /
6.3. The offlci •c
.u
r r %
applicants^ O.A^No. 24^^120 ii &3 IS(r ; ll i
(i) That, o to 1 m &a empanelled, the Vigilah^^^gpartment -invegjj process, resulting .in the following-fmdings:-
S'i! "Duhng investigation of a compliant on irregularities .in the selection process,-it . ^ ten w ii i ii;
has been revealed that the above selection process has got vitiated from the, stage of written examination due to irregularities arising from the leakage, pf- EfSv1 i- question papers/model answers, adopting of unfair means by ■ candidates during written examination, manipulation of answer sheets during evaluation, . _ : lack of uniformity in awarding of marks, unreasonable/illogical distribution of 11 5f i • marks and violation of extent guidelines in awarding of marks."
{
I
l
i!!l 1 hX
|||; f
f: >
ii
8
li i
SI
25 o.a. 1135.2011, o,a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 Accordingly, the respondent authorities, having been convinced of.
rampant irregularities, cancelled the selection process and notified a fresh selection.
a 7.1. In abidance to the directions of this Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents would furnish before the Tribunal the following:-
it W Cognizance taken by the Railway Board of allegations made on.
8m irregularities of the selection process, duplicate selection file of CPO of iS;i i CLW bearing No. GMftfTTC/%/1 XIII " (M^h-MDuplicate) on the m subject matten'-Sele sghanics (Mech;).
mi
m'
«3 notificatio
i
i
ep-Ti
airmans
r•
All L id^^bruitrn Ss artr.-v
ll
tri
■if
(201(0)
n
m 5H%
mm •
ft
111
Z\
M Lshed Jy,; the
.1
mi
]g
" ll
responden
(i) Complaint 1315 of.
v
in
2011 alle; g^particularly,' in
it
\
m conduct of written lamination and eKaMffibn of the same;-. The
mwm
tw.i i
3
complaint was duly acknowledged by the Chief Vigilance
PM *
riM J. Commission's Office at New Delhi, -who had thereafter forwarded
m
il the said complaint to the Advisor (Vigilance) of the Railway. Board
$
»1! at New Delhi.
m
(ii) As directed by the Railway Board, the Deputy CVO (CLW) had filed m •ii Hi l his report to the Secretary (Vigilance), Railway Board after 'fw LX'y aw m:N - ■ .
m rM / K5a / 26 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. * / 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a; 47.15, o.a.
/ 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
>ar enclosing the following in obtaining the advice of the Railway
m Board:-
H (Q Duplicate case file bearing No. 12/VO/RA/OLW/CON/03
A'
1
:■?
containing investigation report and vigilance comments with ! I legible copies of relevant documents based on which the report || [. ^ Mi i has been prepared.
;• ij t\ : (ii) Brief summary of the case. rt f '££■-&*» '"'■'■'jtr.
Sv* ; i r N IS ; i I?1'!! (Hi) Tabular statJefiient. m i: ■ ; (iv) » ii..'
(v) dehecmm hi mments i? \ . m- d CVOii 1 (id; 3* :he vied Ms ! ! I fomws:-
.gS'S.'r mli, !p I 8i•ii |jjl eddCfo^BEerious irregularitlies >raksiiig from l -adoption of unfair,jmieans 1 8 •S' i s fide 3 ckof i;/ II arks, unreasonable / h f^marks rks^long ■Hi? of Board's guld dela Ltten test :t and or i-v-sA SR' Selection, theref^fii cSiato»®credlblte|^9L i .;panel:. lacks r iI sanctity/integrity^The rehomineade mcelled. The B! '4 jg selection process m'avk.be conducted deno^p^Soin^®^ stage of written examination in_sjg!^^tion committee."
,> .
II K1 ?
5
* *.
l;- n
W
N ! st S
The competent authority in CLW accepted such recommendations and cancelled the selection process. The notification of cancellation read r M ! as quoted below:-
r si Hf ffi'i .
i3»|;
■in
i ! W'
i
i 1
I
i vv
5 t- ••
'7^?5
i
lesa?
RnBH
27 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 "CLW/CHITTARANJAN (CONFIDENTIAL) <-
No. GMA/TTC/3/l/Pt. XIII (Mech.)(Duplicate) Date: 10.2.2015 MEMORANDUM Sub: Cancellation of Panel of Inter-Stage Apprentice Mechanics (Mech.).
Ref: (i) Notification No. GMA/TTC/3/lPt. XIII (Mech) dated 1.9.2008;
(ii) Panel No. GMA/TTC/3/1 Pt. XIU (Mech) dated 31.3.2011 & No. GMA/TTC/3/1 Pt. XIII (Mech)/Ad-hoc dated 31.3.2011* A notice was issued^for the empanelmdrit^gl^S (thirty two) candidates for the post of inte^-Sfige Appr^tig%jj^:chanics'piie^), vide Notification. No.::
GMA/TTC/3/^ff. XIII * i-
' .'■f?
ilished with the m^rof the selection process, approym of C |/TTC/3/l.Pt; 1 or 27 (twenty sevens Candida XIII (MecMs il.3.201h^g|^Mr' fcwU .She panel oh- Ad^oc bdlipr^s "Best^^g^^ie pul^ C^^idates". vide NoJ gm/TTC/3/1 Pt#&IWdeS)/Adho i m ab°ve IdgilariSi' Depar^Pnv^jb:;*• ^lan Ms was m\|pi&gate|L.by the were' the Jse^ckpn process? _____ mended1|||| thSentire: . iT p^ftfe&.ay be c^Selled^^^ be - bducted -frSn the § stag^sof ^vritten & fCTSelection^^unifiee.. ;; I Sss^The abovSaicLn pera »puMshed with^^ aplroval j ofjpME. TherefoS^te; li-i,r200f/^gDh,S it'is; 1 fotl^^subseouenwiaK^ .ej r:
mlSties or otheSfcdefecm and V J. itig considered ne^Sai iilChi panel: this slmld bfldohe %rJbtainmg the^5|jfev^hf| KfrlpL :| alth&ty- higher thansjj^pnS that (i proved the panel. J % AccQ^rahgj^g^e%nbjec cohsid|§ .panel of (thirty t^p) can^at^s vide ref: (ii) abovggpSSs J0§n %Ued b^GM and or%red ;f tn^^pection process de-no^gt Ftro: i* Jiage M Written Ex^inahWfaf^r cjcE ^mles.
i^urth^saction i^^4ae. taken accordir accoEdance,i#ith the extant provisioiS^miilh^ ' ^ 'bW*® 1 ■m % Sinha) Smtt; Personnel Officer(G) For Chief Personnel Officer"
(iv) Upon accepting the report of Vigilance, the CVC recommended major penalty proceedings against 12 Junior Engineers as well as the Members of the selection committee, namely, Shri Bharat Bhusan, the then WM/Manufacturing I, the then question setter, Shri K.K. iii -
r iii ili Sharma, the then PE/SF, who was the evaluator, as well as against Cfl-X-
!.
H f:■ 1
P'.ifj
m msmazsms^
MW 1!
28 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 Shri D.K. Maity, the then SPO (A) since superannuated. Shri S.N. Chaubey, SPO (PC), who functioned as the Member in such selection committee was, however, replaced by one Shri S. Biswas, SPO (RP) as Member prior to finalization of the results.
9. The applicants in O.A. No. 244 of 2015 have repeatedly alleged that the selection file in its original form was missing and have also produced a copy of search notice dated 26.8.2013 which states that the file bearing .-C-. Wv* m No. GMA/TTC(3/1 pt^'XIII (Mech.)jjContaim5lg^the relevant papers li u1 f ■» regarding notifi:batiq anics in Stage t Im (Mech.) d, J?:
ovOTiber, 2011.
The respo^erifis Coun sakd file in I 'is duplicate ^erein £ ay of rM si expJia^ e omtset.V. jl .__ co niide^^ been -
I11 iI retame cft#duplicatJfe^| a authoriti 11 IIt r original pr imks of / tSE5:
!• CMB-ofCLW' i;
releas^^^thd^^^Ole on f.
;v recommending^reevaluation of the, rer scripts of the 32 empanelled candidates.
:r- (b)The Chief Vigilance Officer of the CLW, however, was categorical in his observations when he had stated as follows:- ! "(2) The question paper in this case contained objective questions of 50% ■ •, i marks and numerical of 20% marks. If one is aware of such question " ! beforehand through leakage of q. paper, he/she can score well without leaving ; any evidence. Therefore, with leakage ;of q. paper having been proved, it is not possible to find who is a bonafide select candidate by recheck of answer sheets.
Moreover there are no extant rules for revaluation of answer scripts in a i selection."
u: *
a
uL„... .si: :
• '.'AJ r) \
1 29 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m,a.
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 Having observed as above, the Chief Vigilance Officer recommended that, on account of serious irregularities as indicated in the Vigilance 'i Advice, cancellation of the panel would be the only recourse without prejudice to the pendency of the O.A. No. 1135 of 2011. Ultimately, the-
selection process was cancelled by the appropriate authority, Respondent No. 1 in O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 and-O.A. No. 244 of 2015, namely, the 't General Manager of CLW.
%: m- ■
p. It
10. While adjudicating^O.A. No. 1.9Z of Z&fQ^and 19 similar other m mm m SI 4B1 *.*S mm O.A.S (supra) (^efied^^J ^%ppncants i^ o. of 2015), this m '• j Ia m I Tribunal haS 6at^^^zed malpra&fci i; bllows:-
s ii a "ISfaj.The-^rious stag# hi iialdfac- n occur ar pmndlr:-
■a.
m
fsi
ll $
r 'ue'smonl
1
1
S: fl f/'jr-;
|yc) Malpr*3es.iri«tiMiii4 LatL^Siamelv (i)^mersfeatioh -
f a
seal mrfi means mr^exan^Ie "(a)-;,
!'Sg takini ii siisaaM &gmlirers, sup^OTg cMts or
1 $£3
If SZ (b) S0®D0dv^
,v'J(d) The evW*^ar- •< fcfcil'-"'.
pplyiipfelips/chitP^- E'jgimlffii I. | (c) Aethercruci^^pestioWi^d; Vhemer y leakage w® isilatecr • ■ a ' is I; jf ac&pn or many-^&^£ ifciso^ 'ML Ii 1:
:
•V •••• f-, in the instanitesoase? Ci oncluded it the .q ii LI 4 pities.;# IVi mu R?j P e. m :
jp
I i i
(ii) luring written
$
ii
11 (iii) Fraudulent mes-by some candidates in
3 connivance with the evaluator;
i-
IvU
P-fi? (iv) Lack of uniformity in awarding of marks;
C|i
it (V) Unreasonable /illogical distribution of marks by the
evaluator;
!/
P (vi) Violation of Board's guidelines in the award of marks;
i? (vii) Long delay in declaration of written test results;
i
fa j
nwram
30 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
(viii) Absence of the original copy of the selection file and certain missing answer scripts.
Each of these irregularities, would > i hence, qualify as the malpractice in terms of observation of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1928 of 2010 and 19 others (supra).
11. The applicants in O.A. No. 244 of 2015 have strongly urged citing the ratio in Stizuki Par^^arrtp^^B^Mtilxg^Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that ths respondents are r#di^o^p^itions in as much art!'-
\\
*UF -fEP
as they had;J#aimM%fft there were no irregulaitti&fwhil^^sponding to # r the claimf m O.A. & twslir: t thereafter ^ Celled the Jr said s.Jec^fe|*procesap ft. : seve: '•Zs, egMarities j ••If I- m comf te contra; jyion»Jg ^^atejMfeositionWa isBioted S- P^'-Lirfsi m & ■A :• i\ herein tto^the repl id in. Ju^2018-but mi ! i...-
■« ■t f 91 the|^ig^ce Repo^^ K'jj ibeO .0.13^ culiiE in ' Jf can&ll^ftioli of the seTfttiOh. ns .l&tleSfe e to the ffi the .
u t.
fll
m. SB
i
competent authori liigsJ ■ ■
report, anjaction
I; i conset%nt reply to O.A.1 3S*po3E?KOjfl£:;- Tiere the
l!
*! ■r,
i
responded aut^pfiti^s in C^Lhave defamlfecBis ej#'fail^fe to file a
"1
'-5*1. w
M m supplement^^repl%^sfe?o^^ [1 iqUenta? ons d decisions
m*
i that could have IJ^^of 2011 but for the
m
it ! n pendency of O.A. 244 of 2015?^ 5wr
Im
1
a;
iff'i 12. The applicants have relied on a number of judicial
ml mifti pronouncements. The applicability of.which of these, in the instant;
Im,
I
'i matter is examined as per seriatim.
-i
(i) The ratio in Rajesh P.V. Puthuvalnikathu & another (supra),
ih
that refers to segregation of non tainted candidates, is not applicable as :
1!N h
if
ii applicants in O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 would: allege and the respondents in
■i
$ \
i
t I j
Si
V
4
/
/
31 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a, 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 833.2017; m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432,2015, o.a. 1706.2015 O.A. No. 224 of 2015 would admit widespread malpractice in the selection process.
(ii) The ratio in Mahadev Appa Rao & ors. (supra), questions respondents' decisions on the grounds of non application of mind. Upon . :: i a perusal of the selection file, the proceedings, as well as the Vigilance Report, however, we are of the considered view that the. respondent 4£ authorities consciously, deliberated into the issues involved prior to ■I & * t $ 0! III itself from 1 it difectir^ any re evalual ur .s Ijjudicial ..
w It
11}
" fel , H revie^ Inflfifs O.A ?|take .upj^^rtsmf any
» '$Sj
i|l I a
ml
ml
taskfbf
M
f^^Sting
•£taS?Sv
reM -3 ventirel,^me dfcain
i'
ft ; i
I?! | of t0!e r^gpndent af eMiitted bi lie sl L
sr
(
a (iv) jn figiak BhatMjU^g^i •s.': ii
as on cj si jj uslin of S. 1 ti i I*! i igory of c The • t I S .instaM matteB^i rgjf Tmocess. yp-a-vis a :m L& T. I cancella^on •if; fa. jT' hence, the ratioj rm hatmcharya I •'l % / V* & (supra) is%^ar®%^ .t mawer $ t;
r t
Ji
I W In RalB%Ma^& 19 lit similar O ), this Tribunal.
I. «
was to adjudicate oh ^situation where ret y only 57 candidates
:■
ii -f
m
K m
B
■ m!i
s were implicated and the others were not alleged of any irregularities. In
[I
the instant matter, the vigilance report clearly indicates leakage of :'!3 II 2 i v;
question papers. It is difficult to segregate the beneficiaries of such ll m-
1b leakage of question papers from others as any of the candidates could 1 |S; have been privy to such discriminatory and prejudicial advance It disclosure. Leakage, of question papers, in general, vitiates the entire |i ^:!v mB1 selection process as it severely affects the interests of the meritorious i i 32 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893,2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 candidates attempting to appear honestly in a selection process on merit as against others, who gain undue advantage as a result such advanced disclosure.
(vi) It is noteworthy that the CVO of CLW in his noting had stated that, as the objective questions contributed to 50% marks and the numerical questions were to be assessed for 20% marks, prior knowledge of such questions will contribute to a candidates' scoring much higher, marks v than others without tearing Further, prior.aflchowi©fc%lf ®q!ies nelgssarily require candidateslto^ti^plose proriggj^i h other. a «| \
(vii) Wh^at is More d tglfdls il me n 6 ®Lthe vieilai feat, in a (» $T-
IP i
4 o|!||iswer
num|0r
m, - otoi y
fgi
iwe differ§pft^l|ies of
&
f ,1.
- JiL *'^-3
ink msGfv^J» in cr»peW EE] Sought
f EESSRScTS.
access EL .e answer
& Q,
notfd her#that ther^g^m^ 1 il afte: !k % signif&ant % months-land ^^|i%d with remarks Si -
the date omis s&n erannfetion *;
13. The appli^nts r :e also ra) to highlight Z**'%6*s . . v< that the candidates 'tlbs^pot have the right^Pchallenge if they are unsuccessful in the selection process. It is observed herein that the applicants in O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 have not challenged their selection process and the criteria therein; they had questioned the implementation of the selection process, particularly, in conduct of written examination i •V and procedural flaws in evaluation thereof. It is on record that it is their complaints which have opened up a c&n of worms whereby massive ''t irregularities came to be detected by vigilance wing.
CvO.' 33 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 If, upon due and proper consideration of the representation received from candidates who were unsuccessful in the earlier examination, the competent authority concludes that the earlier test suffered from infirmity or that fair opportunity was denied to the candidates, the competent authority is at liberty to issue a fresh order , i m notifying cancellation of the said examination in which event the second m m.m test would become the basis for selection process to be finalized in n m accordance with law.
'■i
We find .-^hat ination, the
m
r r
BJ the earlier and t
/ ^
Ip prpcei% d^givo fro
m i'i i*.
§ 'm 14. fH^Ster, wdMW % !l: a f' ii $i,v subject |^f irreg^ri s f •1 K 1 .
Ji! «
appsin jaB. %
if ■ nm Pi (a) %m&3mlhan Kum
!i p 473,% Divisi
m 1
% '
■ ^ recomnmndai Gourts
\ i
t •' IMS!sh
h
•X; unless it was esl&blishee ■cised bona
•i; •
.Ur
?
fide. In the instant the vigilance fepo^^ms r^efred to massive
f-ii?i' "^"^SaSsur,
'iii
irregularities in the sel^ n process as folio;
in "8.3, The selection process has suffered from serious irregu^ritlesfarising
from leakage of question paper/model answers, adoption of unfair'nieans by the candidates during the written examination, .ffaudulent andfrn^iiide. activities by some candidates in connivance,with the ievaluator, :lack of h. msasn-' uniformity in award at marks, unreasohaile/iUb^cai distribution of|cn:|rks ■a & gf!I i by the evaluator, violation of Board's guideline in: award of. majdEs^lbng delay in declaration of the written test result, missing of the selectlbhiple I-' I Wm i and missing of answer sheets of 07 borderline candidates. Selection, ft 3 therefore, is not considered credible and the resultant panel lacks sanctity/integrity. The same is recommended to be cahceUedv Thie I !) selection process may be conducted denoyo from the stage of written t I E examination with nomination oftnew mex&bers in selection cbmmittebi'c P ■ m Pi I.'t t.
C3 L rc-
7 • , .
■'-f '■£■ ^BiSgggftgagwttaaa
£•' '• ^*'*17%.-*.
if / ■■ U."
Vi -".r
• ■-. /
/
34 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, fn.a. 47.2015, m.a. /* 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 ;;
Pc' It is clear from the above findings that, the bonafide of the selection process was called into question. d
(b) In Kristian Yadav vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCO 165, the ft HonTole Apex Court, after having expressed anguish at systemic fraud in the selection process, set aside the selection of all 96j Taxation «•I Inspectors.
J
(c) In All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar,
I (20100
i
>■
t si
&' to%which the
:a
I
:■ B
n
U&
W alsg. gone ' i ' .
m | through the exf :ars at ISRf the
m j- ju4S®ent of th@ f
100 to 2@0#ainfflates - , i wewP^uspected ®Sgf® aii 6ns three fes.lfefore; ' i 1 th^l^mination 1_ou _T_ anged thi ®sw®rs by;.. . :
1 act^ting huge ^^pELOttuof4mi% tenatpn iii 4. - - \& 4 r€^pe%| of 62 cand^&e^PWi the answer si! its* ^flleast,:/ >•.
lsil*Gahdidates had as4-to secure; quOT^feigi arks t 1 ! in the written test. T fli2 m prima facie e« a.-rablish V ii 1leakage of . r »er^^^andidates m>r' the ,.
:• Ikaminatiq^ Eer, it that l#cage of ; ^ m qUestion#p^^ "^^planned and wid$rorea#r - possoility of ;
m^lvem^lTOjrlhe R^ifey/RRB staff and also cp^side^ '■m »mJfhot t#ruled out.
M andi^ncel^ccSnaSLendeama^tie matter bg gefierred ^3®'
iS Tr
i.-
55S Ultimllt|ly tft^ion ii t-thar^
.
"We therefor%_find %^^afirmity...ini-the 4||Tdb^bn _t i by the Board in
m
m conducting the_1S^nd wn§SSEa^wrtB^3^^ge whgjiiKve bbtaihed minimiun
tm
o?
qualifying marks in"tfelflEStwritten test rather "u going ahead with the first egularities and malpractice. The ■> m written test which was Board can now take further steps to regularize the result of the second test ahd Hi the appointment of the selected candidates." *
(d) In B. Raminjini v. State ofAP (2002) 5 SCO 533, another similar;
Hi i
if matter of mass copying and ; leakage of question papers came up for
■m
Ill adjudication and the HonTole Apex Court, after holding that one cannot
If
& have an advantage either by copying or by having a foreknowledge of the,
i
51
ii question paper or otherwise, upheld the cancellation of examination.. The
i;' ii:
:
kJi
**•1
V' vUs'- :•
.7, ,-3:- .1.
/
.ZL_
mu
/
!■ --7 ;y
■i
i ■.
35 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. i' / 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o;a. 1706.2015 ■ ■V"
; Hon'ble Court further cautioned that courts should not unduly interfere f /m with the action taken by the Government which is in possession of the 2 necessary information and takes action upon the same and also that the ^ i 11 courts ought not to take the action lightly1 and interfere with the same •;
I 1%' particularly when there was some material for the government to act in E a one way or the. other. 1 ri m
(e) Further, in Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh (2003) 11 SCO • 'I i: i> 768, the Honhle Coprt31%eld ttot^a^cellatiorPof^the selection process h Is f'S was perfectly ^JiStifi e" s £is vitiated by ; w . *•?
procedurat;^[n.d. 0 infirmitiei n■ ?£ i# '■ft '9/624/ i li 1999Mc.I^athodJ fedated m m w 5.1. QOflfea obse:
sji I t\ ».vyrfea«-:tR jf i m ;
m- 1 c m
4 .I
ill 5
i-
;:s
"a the,jg^a|ice, cei ;S
•r .
'
t. i thfit {fhere was lar^jscaJ^leaKa|e :ff-mi^ti^ the "wpttceiiiiicer
Iff i to^kjiiaimediate steJ^^nd^AteJ c&dlic^g[ .^™railed- enquh^^pe?| the ■ t
^conausion that the tl pa ^If/ Wliile it is nbt phsable to
#'3
i-A a
■§)in point thp^e^S^'' ' ' *m'~t the presJStself it
%. probable^ml^i-SgB^^fi' ^ Man^gr npted
! ll %t the dnfpearly established tl io: 'V 'aperiffad been
m. le%ed 0%^^i-thefeiKSS itself and felt , tha ^aesiraj, '1' ; that the
11 Illi : prewius t%t'l#| JJakagSbfquestion
Mf1 ■;
papefljproblyy c me a^mprities took
the vie1mthat%Jie te^^Sici to Order a
fresh te^fWe •Application of mind
J®1
c mWmMi;
13' while takinp^ie de_^ the fresh test or
•j iiil that such a de^^mx wa s corporation. We hold that it
Is (g)
was done in bon^^^xerciseZrpower^d with j;jO^pHcation of mind."
In Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar 1997 (1) WT.7.--
m§§k£ pmU1"
*
-f ysfej LBESR 400 SC9 it was held that the High Court committed gross error of pmB '• f I law in issuing mandamus requiring the Public Service Commission and ilfw 5 illil the State to give appointment to the respondents even after going ■; pl| iii !.
ji through a report which in no certain terms indicated the gross illegality
mM- iV
and irregularity committed by the Service Selection Board in the matter Sli!:
iSfc ;
i
m ■:
of holding examination and drawing up the list of successful candidates.
?S.f H-tX
ill
5 :
•>*
;* i£a> -oi'' -t'
> **•
%3 36 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a.
i:
■ ?'
445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. __^ 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
(h) In State of Tamil Nadu & anr. v. A. Kalaimani & anr. Civil Appeal Nos. 6190-6201 of 2019 reported in 2019 (3) A1SU 25 the K i Hon'ble Apex Court held that if there was serious doubt about the M magnitude of malpractice and manipulation, a fresh exam process has to S' i be conducted by the State. The Hon'ble Apex Court had referred to the r.;r.
t, ratio held in Gohil Vishwaraj Hanubhat and Ors. v. State of Gujarat \ and Ors., (2C17) 3 SCC 621, wherein it was held as follows:-
,1 "The authority of the^ State to take appropriate mea^ires to maintain purity of any examinatiorr-process is^n^uCTonaMejt is to'6%ell settled a principle of t:
' law in light of the y^phs^gfeHir^deeisiclis^ofltllJS^ouftv^at where there are allegationsrof Iho^cferenCe of large scal^'li^P^l^^p iri^fhe course of the conduct' Of any%,examination process, the State'O^fra^insriSmentaUties are entitled tacarilemhe examinationf#his^€ourt on numeisfejoccaiions approved ■ s the actiox^the'State cancel Mmin^ks whenever 1 «■ t-j t suph actions bdievedl^B&ie^ssljy Oh th#ifci_ of some rgg^affi© material to.vint&^te that ex^Matio^|pr|ce|s is yMat^S seek proof of each.^hevef ^ r ;i ' ^ ^ °€°X8ed t0 ■r S& AWr (■ ■ jF V, ".r> •S' • 'Ml • i T' .«•■ ip;J4 S *1 r i i ;
■! bn Ihe r :
allegkdl^-iiTegulaT seleli^prole&/l recall the t r ; ? i :
( "(i)>-whem:e^^4h,e selection process notification _ ••'ftawet._______- r ;■ • of alleged i* i VI
(a) Upon having refeifed-^each of the docunfents brought forth in the !: Aj- t f j,H •' t pleadings and also during hearing, and, having considered the judicial l pronouncements in the context of gross irregularities in selection 'l ;
process, we are of the considered view that the selection process ;( conducted consequent to notification dated 1.9.2008 deserves to be V W-'j-i : I cancelled and, accordingly, finding no cogent reason to intervene in the
-_ cancellation memo dated 10.2.2015 of the respondent authorities, we i f f.
uphold the came. &U'
I ! .•*
Y* - mn m 11? f msm v irtry, :
pi V ■■ ^4
Kir-ntril
ill
37 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. if st Kir ki? 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 t! ■V (b) In the same context, we would further state that, on 11.1.2012, ;
[if /[ this Tribunal, by way of interim relief in O.A. No. 1135 of 2011, had r ^11' directed that the selection to the post of Apprentice Mechanic will abide '. * H by the result in the O.A. O.A. No. 1135 of 2011, having been declared in ;! f| r.t . 3 i the present order as infructuous, the respondents are at liberty to cancel ir !■ the selection process which would no longer be infringed by the pendency of O.A. No. 1135 of 2011. I;
The respondents^- are alsce at liberty. t8i%cQ|rtinue their selection : -■ ■ v'■' 1 ^ 1 ft f 4m, i process as intended r 2.201^5. We hope and * * i r trust that rth*e,red^^Ldents will e that no r E® f > i.
j
t malpractices recur in ttopf 55
i i /
■f * '£8
f: :• f1
mmn
j.
W' .pplio 4§|2015
! - .v-S 'I }\
I V-IU as feUs^other •t be
l
-MU parfes JEJny iudi^ptaftwro
4
J.At *
v.
-to rticipate^^theSsaid ! °s1 i Ji. 4SS|1%-1 i process.1®1 case, the^^ic fs » .e-L iF ! I g m*. jJ 2015, addid applicant^^dh^'-Op..lJald 3 S 4 J Jyi j on account tn M- { /% ^ «■ shall gflmt refejation, if so require ?■ j- •;
( in the selecmon pkpcess. t£%.
; ;
(C) ru
The applfeants^gainst '■ft* i #! initiate disciplinary proce^toigs as well as o ^candidates (who are not j ;
applicants to these O.A.s) against whom disciplinary proceedings have. ;
been recommended vide the respondent authority's order dated r ! i 30.1.2015, shall, however, be debarred from appearing in the selection ;■ i ;■ process unless absolved in the disciplinary proceedings. For such i \ $ y j purpose, the disciplinary proceedings shall have to be completed before Sif I tt.
V conduct of the selection process.
-j j | f f I \ ■* r t___ £ 38 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. * 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015
(d) In O.A. No. 1706/2015 (Alok Kumar Singh v. CLW), the y / applicant had come up in the aforementioned O.A. challenging the entire proceedings including the memorandum of charges dated 25.9.2015 vide & which the applicant was alleged to have resorted to various malpractices ■'i :! in the written examination. The respondents are at liberty to complete I !' the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in O.A. No. 1706 of ' •'! 2015 in accordance with lavy. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
I C ■■
..v '■ 'jp-
; <• (e) In O.A. No. 1365 of 2015 (Nagendra^JDubey v. CLW), the
P
applicant has coihe upfifaymf fo^qua^hi^l^f ife m^prandum dated 1 18.8.2015 --vide ^;hich the respondenWauthoritieS im|nde%to proceed '• .7"- ^ ;■ - ■'"'.vX. % against,fhe applicant on^ground%f i'm^prfcdc^allegedly^iOpted by the /?-'% % % l ^fnt/fthe wHe^^gg^phyectio^ols. No * i reply, ^||fiider Acco^gl^| the u ■ >■ r % ; resfjpndfents are gr^pfe^ipnl^ii^Jiphnary feelings ;■ \\ Mi i . :
agaipst this applicant^inraccdrdahce^with^w.'1 \9Sb f?. ,4: i; ■,{( % % % Sf -A ::iltko£A. No. 1432^2^ld\(kkl^^Cv^r Sharma the .
I- ___ - if l], applicant has ;^^tepge|^e1^il§SeSi:orM!^g!^4£ted 2.9.2Q|fe vide : • r:
i ;
% ,f ,//■ vs which the re'spdifdent anffliorities have intend^'taMji#afe disciplinary f ~n ■S, % 4$ r * y . h proceedingsv.a^aJnst the ,®pplic£SS; dh'poundAf alleged *,< ^practice in i the written exdminatibn. in the slfection proces'^iotifim on 1.9.2008.
V. "-V_, ' :'V • >•* .........
The applicant was also'^emjoying an interim reli^fdated 13.2.2015 which !' I granted him status quo. The said interim order stands vacated. The I ■■ r respondent authorities are at liberty to complete the disciplinary •-I proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law.
(g) In O.A. No. 232 of 2016 (Sanjoy Ganguly v, CLW), the applicant ! i -
has challenged the memorandum dated 9.9.2015 vide which the i ! i.
I respondents have intended to initiate disciplinary action against the ■a f applicant for his alleged malpractice in the written examination to the HI I • ^scrasKr '»r_ r .a.
mi ........... ■! ■_ 39 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015> m.a. 47.2015> m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a; 152.15> m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 1. selection process pursuant to notification dated 1.9.2008. No reply and If /fi jai'ii...
rejoinder or any interim relief is on record. The respondents are at liberty mm »ia:
' •( to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in ■Ui'W ;■ m accordance with law.
ii (h) The respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary
j
si®
■i \%L proceedings against each of the applicants mentioned above in O.A.s
i -ti.;
[.
IW
3 I):-- tr. No. 1706/2015, No. 1365/2015, 1432/2015 and No.'232 of 2016 Witihin
SJ-11. 4,v •j'.v.'Vi >•*/„. !, *
i a
mu
m
M
a
4r t
.. -4
^iill
>
2015|hace mittedl
I irl conMiu^ Biereaft
m
11 II: «r 2015 bl m
isn datit
I ;
a m: tn j
ipLCtibh tbf#|<^)ve#ahy :
» respond authoritim^al m t i iI }. i!! peciibiilf^benefits that y of ;
.! iin;
■at functioning as^Tdhi m The 1 w-
'•I p m interim l^rdeiO^^^ ders in 'i ■4 i! Hi E3 w «■ these O.A.s% 15.2 w. I a i Ni ii m% S "whether the applican5 blDA^Nq. 244/20 1:
M mV ■i s s* mi to the post of Apprentice Mechanics, Inter Stage (Mechanical)/ an # i8 In this context, we would refer to the following judicial decisions;-
<
l
I 0*21 (a) In Director General of Police, MP and another v. Ravi
I Shankar Viswanath Singh and others 1988 (1) SLR 201 the
[V; r(
im.
f\i
m .'1'
Honhle Madhya Pradesh High-Court at Jabalpur had held that:
N • ! .j " in case of invalid appointments, no such right accrues to the employees and it is open to the appointing authority to cancel such appointments/ ;
B \. n m\ ;
/ / i 40 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152,15, m.a. 47.15, o.a.
/ 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 / The Hon Tile Court further held that in such cases no show cause Bf 7' notice is necessary.
i
(b) In Sk. Sahim v. State of W.B. & ors. W.P. No. 10868(W) of i i 2006 , the HonTile High Court at Calcutta ruled as follows:- .
to 3I !$ "It is known that such illegal appointment for however long a period one may continue in service on the basis of such appointment, does not create any right . Hi $ in favour of the appointee to seek legalization of the appointment. The initial appointment being illegal, it continued to remain illegal all through. Mere length of illegality does not create^tany^sorf bf'h'ght^to^seek permanent appointment to the post." „**■•*** r-;' I I : In the instant S-TBi.
i.
!e-sSecuoihl SS'i
i|
been held as
9 vitiated and voitl&d initio, J anointments ifi^pphdants as JE
If < -i
(Mechambal)
/
.. rendi^sH%in
♦J
VT ccp ly, - we JcJura ^ iat the
f
!1
jf
i
'i
f
applicant^^amot hag iv mde iSllt rtb. Bb
i
!■ J ■
a• < 15.3f( .A. No®^
13
h the
5
j
6
restSon authonSes. ^n.M \ A1T-X
i
j' V;'.
i| r
.1 4 I
i intelli Sfeaers havirf*g i£@n wii e ■&< ^igj^thi^lerlithis
n ii -i IS
J I;
< t
; i l!j 1 •li
M.AlismsDOsed of as in tctpo
II ■! !
114
/ fa. jffr
(b) In M.A. raising out#f O.A;
j aii
n No. 244% hisiFribunal,
it vide its ^parties as
l:
£
5;. prayed for in arising out of
:$
ai O.A. No. 244 of 2015;*
i I With O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 being declared iAfructuous, M.A. No.
c
i3 893 of 2017 is disposed of accordingly.
5
4 16. Hence, to sum up, t:
?: i i ;; (i) O.A. No. 1135 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. I'ii
(ii) O.A. No. 244 of 2015 is dismissed.on merit with the rider that the respondents will not recover any pecuniary benefits as earned by the original applicants in O.A. no. 244. of 2015 and added applicants as per 3-
itl' ! 41 o.a. 1135.2011, o.a. 244.2015, m.a. 47.2015, m.a. 445.2015, m.a. 893.2017, m.a. 152.15, m.a. 47.15, o.a. 232.2016, o.a. 1365.2015, o.a. 1432.2015, o.a. 1706.2015 M;A. no. 47 of 2015 and M.A. no.'152 of 2015 in case they have actual] rendered service as Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the interregntu and also that these applicants wi^l be given the benefit of age relaxatioi if any so required, in the de novo selection process.
(iii) O.A. No. 232 of 2016; O.A. No. 1432 of 2015, O.A. No. 1706 < 2015 and O.A. No. 1365 of 2015 are all disposed of with liberty to th respondent authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within period of six months receipt o y of this order, to- fc completed bef< e corollary thz those absoi^e^Jrcfgjfrthe charge titled to, proces "N T Ffel ft, ■ •
(iv) /he .s st s ct ■ofes&wi be ^jj^fspecti | R^^try will:" :e_sJ ■ hj CUS! dyCUth e resposHwua .r* o h • (NanditaXuhafterjee) Administra ie.
SP