Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahipal vs M/O Communications on 31 October, 2025
1
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1612/2020
Reserved on: 27.10.2025
Pronounced on: 31.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1.Mahipal
Mahipal s/o Madanlal Mitharwal,
Mitharwal
R/o Dhani-Purawali,
Purawali, Village Jajod, Tehsil Khandela,
Rajasthan - 332722.
Group-CC Employee, Gandhinagar Division, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat - 382010.
2. Hemant Premchand,
Premchand
VPO Deroli Ahir, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh,
Haryana - 123028.
Group-C
C Employee, Vadodara
Vadodara Division, Vadodara, Gujarat.
3. Sudhir Kumar,
Kumar
R/o Village Bucholi, District Mahendragarh, Haryana -
123034.
Group-CC Employee, Jamnagar Division, Jamnagar, Gujarat
- 361001.
4. Ajay s/o Sukhvir Singh,
Singh
VPO Norojpur Gujar, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
Group-CC Employee, Rajkot Division, Rajkot, Gujarat.
5. Pramila Devi w/o Krishan,
Krishan
R/o VPO Kheri Khummar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar,
Haryana - 124013.
Group-CC Employee, Amreli Division, Amreli, Gujarat.
2
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
6. Yogesh s/o Ramesh Bhai Bhardwaj
Bhardwaj,
R/o RZ S-13,
13, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -
110015.
Group-CC Employee, Rajkot Division, Rajkot, Gujarat -
360001.
7. Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. Upender SinghSingh,
R/o Village Rasulpur Turki, Post Asoi, Via Bhagwanpur
Hajipur, District Vaishali, Bihar - 844114.
Group-C Employee, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad.
Posted as Postal Assistant, Gujarat.
8. Mohan Lal s/o Jangli Ram Meena,
Meena
Village Jutha Hera Kalan, Post Bejupara, Tehsil Baswa,
District Baswa, Rajasthan - 303315.
Group-C C Employee, Amreli Division, Amreli, Guja
Gujarat.
9. Pramendra,
Pramendra
R/o Village Norojpur, Tehsil Baghpat, District Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh - 250601.
Group-CC Employee, Amreli Division, Amreli, Gujarat.
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Yogesh Mahur, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Kumar, Mr.
Srikant singh, Mr. Srajan S. Kulsherestha, Mr. Harkesh
Parashar and Ms. Yogita)
Yogita
Versus
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology,
Department of Posts, through its Secretary,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Director
ector General of Postal Services,
Department of Posts (Recruitment Division),
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hisar Division, Hisar.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Rajkot Division, Rajkot, Gujarat.
5. Superintendent
ntendent of Post Offices,
Jamnagar Division, Jamnagar, Gujarat - 361001.
6. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Amreli Division, Amreli, Gujarat - 365601.
7. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Gandhinagar Division, Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382002.
8. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Jamnagar Division, Jamnagar, Gujarat - 361001.
9. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Narnaul Division, Narnaul, Haryana - 123001.
10. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'W' Division, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390002.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Subhash Gosai)
4
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the below below-mentioned impugned orders passed by the respondents:
i) Memo No. B2/1/Recruitment/DR/2013&14 dated 01.01.2020 and C.O. Ahmedabad Letter No. STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI dated 16/18.04.2019.
ii) Memo No. B
B-
1/1(b)/Recruitment/SA/13&14/2019/Vad 1/1(b)/Recruitment/SA/13&14/2019/Vad-02 dated 25.11.2019 and C.O. Ahmedabad Letter No. STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI-II dated 18.11.2019 & 24.09.2019.
iii) Memo No. B-2/32/SA/2014 B 2/32/SA/2014 at Jamnagar Jamnagar-1 dated 07.11.2019 and C.O. Ahmedabad Letter No. STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI dated 20/24.09.2019.
iv) Memo No. B2/27/O/PA/2013&14/2018 at Rajkot dated 01.11.2019 and C.O. Ahmedabad Letter No. STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI dated 16/18.04.2019.
v) Memo No. B
B-
2/33/DR/PA/Representation/PD/2013&14/2019 at
Amreli dated 31.12.2019 and C.O. Ahmedabad Letter No. STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI-II STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI dated 20/24.09.2019.
vi) Memo No. B-2/27/O/PA/2013&14/2018 B 2/27/O/PA/2013&14/2018 at Rajkot dated 25.04.2019 and Compliance of Letter No. A A-
34013/05/2014 34013/05/2014-DE(Pt-III) III) dated 19.02.2019.
vii) Memo No. Staff/18-40/PA Staff/18 40/PA SBCO/2014/III dated 29.04.2019 and Compliance of Letter No. A A-
34013/05/2014 34013/05/2014-DE(Pt-III) III) dated 19.02.2019.
5Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
viii) Memo No. B-2/33/Direct/2013 B 2/33/Direct/2013 at Amreli dated 22.06.2018.
ix) Memo No. B
B-
2/33/DR/PA/Representation/PS/2013&14 at Amreli dated 31.12.2019 and C.O. Ahmedabad Letter No. STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI-II STA/64/Dte/Compliance/2016/VI dated 20/24.09.2019.
(b) Direct the respondents to allow the applicants to join their services with full back wages.
(c) Any other relief the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted as under:
2.1. In 2011, the Department of Posts introduced a new examination system (objective type questions) for recruitment to the posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant through through direct recruitment and decided to conduct the examination centrally through M/s CMC Ltd., which was entrusted with the entire process from printing application forms to preparing merit lists, based on which the Postal Department would announce results.
2.2. The Postal Assistant Group C Post Recruitment Rules, 2014 came into force on 27.01.2014, providing the method of recruitment, including educational qualifications. In pursuance of an advertisement issued on 21.02.2014, the 6 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 applicants applied for the posts posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant for the 2013-14 2013 14 vacancies in the Gujarat Circle.
The examination was conducted by M/s CMC Ltd., comprising Paper I (Aptitude Test) and Paper II (Computer/Typing Test), and candidates who qualified Paper I were eligible eli for Paper II.
2.3. The Department of Posts subsequently issued the list of selected candidates, and the applicants were selected for appointment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants in Gujarat Circle. On 23.12.2015, the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gujarat Circle issued a Superintendent memo canceling the results of the 2013 2013-14 direct recruitment examination. On 18.03.2016, the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal, allowed Applications filed by similarly situated candidates, quashed the cancellation order, kept the select list in abeyance, and directed a fair and transparent investigation within three months. 2.4. On 08.04.2016, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal followed the Ahmedabad Bench order, allowing similarly situated applicants, including the present applicants, to 7 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 join. However, on 16.08.2016, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court set aside this Tribunal's order, confirming the Department's cancellation of results and termination of appointed candidates. On 13.07.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of Civil Appeal No. 10513 of 2016 Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(Monu Ors.), holding that only candidates identified as having engaged in malpractice in five circles (Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and Gujarat) would be proceede proceeded against, and those not suspected could be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that action could be taken against candidates who violated examination terms, and candidates who were completing their their course could be allowed to finish training if not involved in malpractice. 2.5. Similarly situated candidates filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1802-1803 1802 1803 of 2017; the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 19.01.2018, granted liberty to approach this is Tribunal. Further, in MA No. 479 479-480 in SLP(C) No. 8642-8645 8645 of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed 8 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 that untainted candidates be permitted to join even if appointment letters were not issued. 2.6. The Department conducted internal inquiry, and applicants' licants' names were allegedly identified in the Vigilance report without providing copies, which were later obtained under RTI. The office of Superintendent of Post Offices issued termination letters without reasons, violating principles of natural justice.
justice 2.7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the Department did not adopt a uniform approach and followed a pick-and pick and-choose policy; for instance, one candidate,, namely, Mr. Nitesh Kumar was later reappointed and similar show cause notices were issued to other candidates, some of whom were later reappointed.
2.8. About a year later, applicants received additional show cause notices alleging OMR sheet errors, corrections, or overwriting to which detailed replies were submitted but no timely action was taken. The applicants (except Mr. Hemant and Mr. Mohanlal) filed OA No. 2752 of 2019 9 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 seeking directions to decide their representations, and the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide them within 30 days. Mr. Hemant and Mr. Mohanlal Mohanlal filed OA No. 2891 of 2019 seeking similar relief, and the Tribunal issued a similar direction.
2.9. The applicants challenge the rejection of their representations, contending that they were duly selected for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant pos posts but were not allowed to join, and that allegations of OMR errors, overwriting, or use of fluid are false and do not constitute malpractice. Learned counsel argued that corrections in OMR sheets are procedural and cannot compromise identity verification, verification, as machines check roll number, registration number, booklet number, and responses, and signatures authenticate the candidate. 2.10. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).No.2406/2015, T. Vellisubbaian vs Director, Department of School Education & Anr.
Anr., order dated 14.06.2015,, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana 10 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 13720/2012, UOI vs Rohit Kumar in CWP-13720/2012, Kumar, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 5948/2017, UOI & Anr. vs Nitish Kumar, Kumar order dated 28.08.2017 28.08.2017, and WP(C) No. 6086/2017, UOI & Anr. vs Avinash Chandra Singh & Ors., order dated 29.07.2017, 29.07.2017, as well as the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-2964/2017, 2964/2017, Sh. Rohit Kumar & Ors vs UOI & Anr., order dated 23.10.2017, 23.10.2017, all all, according to him, holding that mechanical rejection of candidates for procedural or non-essential non essential errors is impermissible and candidates cannot be denied appointments on such grounds. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants personally personally appeared in the examinations without outside help, were not involved in any malpractice, have a legitimate expectation to join service, have become overage for any other post, and come from humble, rural backgrounds, making any delay or denial of service rvice irreparably prejudicial.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter reply and submitted that the applicants were declared successful in the PA/SA Direct Recruitment 11 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 Examination 2013-14 2 14 and allotted to their respective divisions, having completed pre-appointment pre appointment formalities, including document verification and medical examination. However, pursuant to instructions from Circle Office Ahmedabad and in compliance with the Hon'ble Supr Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 10513/2016 dated 13.07.2017 (supra),, the appointments of certain candidates, including the applicants, were withheld due to identification in the Directorate Vigilance Report. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted th that the applicants were given opportunities to submit representations, which were duly considered and decided. Their OMR sheets and related documents were scrutinized, and based on the Directorate's findings, they were found ineligible for appointment. Termination Termination and rejection letters were issued with detailed reasons in accordance with Circle Office instructions and judicial directions. Furthermore, claims regarding delay, economic hardship, or overage are irrelevant to the merit and legality of their cand candidatures, and references to other candidates are inapposite as individual cases differ materially. The learned counsel for 12 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 the respondents respondents has filed a written submission and has also placed reliance on the following case laws:
laws:-
3.2. In the written submission submission filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the applicants have no case, and hence the present Original Application (O.A.) is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the Compliance Order dated 16.04.2019 passed in implementation of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 13.07.2017.
3.2.1. It is submitted that the the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while delivering its Judgment dated 13.07.2017, after examining the Vigilance Committee Report, granted liberty to the department/respondents to take action against candidates who violated the terms of the examination and those who appeared in more than one examination centre, stating that such violations wou would be treated as malpractice. The reference to "violation of the terms of malpractice.
examination" pertains specifically to instructions printed on the reverse side of the OMR sheet. It is submitted that 13 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 the applicants not only violated these instructions but also that their very presence in the examination is doubtful doubtful.
3.2.2. In the case of Applicant No. 1, S Sh. Mahipal Mitharwal, it is evident from the impugned order dated 01.01.2020 that he violated examination instructions. Furthermore, his presence in the examination is not confirmed as per the same order.
3.2.3. Applicant No. 2, Sh. Hemant Premchand, was found unfit for appointment due to discrepancies in Column No. 4 (Category). His case was examined by the Directorate Vigilance, which found him unfit for appointment as per the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 passed on his representation dated 04.05.2019. 3.2.4. Applicant No. 3, Sh. Sudhir Kumar, clearly violated examination instructions, as seen in the impugned order dated ed 07.11.2019. His presence in the examination is also not confirmed, as the same order.
3.2.5. Applicant No. 4, Sh. Alay, was among the 87 scrutinized cases identified in the Directorate Vigilance 14 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 Report dated 16/18.04.2019 issued in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 13.07.2017, and his case was rejected.
3.2.6. Applicant No. 5, Smt. Pramila Devi, also violated the examination instructions as recorded in the impugned order dated 31.12.2019), and her presence in the examination is also unconfirmed as per the same order. 3.2.7. Applicant No. 6, Sh. Yogesh, was identified in the Directorate Vigilance Report dated dated 16/18.04.2019, his case having been rejected in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 13.07.2017. 3.2.8. Similarly, Applicant No. 7, Sh. Manol Kumar Singh, was identified in the same Vigilance Report, and his case too was rejected accordingly. 3.2.9. Applicant No. 8, Sh. Mohan Lal, was among the scrutinized cases identified in the Directorate Vigilance Report and his case was rejected.
3.2.10. Lastly, Applicant No. 9, Sh. Pramendra Singh, also violated ed examination instructions as per the impugned 15 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 order dated 31.12.2019 and his presence in the examination was not confirmed as per the same order. 3.2.11. It is further submitted that tthe applicants are not entitled to similar reliefs as those granted to candidates such as Sh. Ashwani (S/o Jagdev Singh) and others. The orders of reinstatement cited in the rejoinder are not final, being subject to the condition that the department retains liberty to take action against those found guilty of malpractice upon upon further investigation. Moreover, such reinstatement orders were issued in 2018 during implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 13.07.2017, which itself conferred such liberty upon the department.
3.2.12. Regarding the issue of whether ttermination of the applicants constitutes a stigma, it is submitted that the orders of termination in the present case are simpliciter and do not carry any stigma. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, Jalna (2003) 2 SCC 386,, and Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, Sidhana, (1997) 4 SCC 385 385. 16 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 3.2.13 The matter has attained finality with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment dated 13.07.2017, wherein the Court, after examining the Vigilance Committee Report, granted liberty to the department to act against candidates found violating examination norms, s such as appearing in more than one centre. No liberty was, however, given to such candidates to submit representations once their appointments were rejected for malpractice. Thus, the applicants cannot re-agitate re agitate issues that have already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the present O.A. is barred by the doctrine of res judicata judicata. Reliance is placed on Sarat Chandra Mishra v. State of Orissa Orissa, 2005 (1) SCALE 9; P.U. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 632 ; and Sarguja Transport Se Service v.
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88.
3.2.14.. It is submitted that the the judgments relied upon by the applicants are inapplicable to the present case. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in T. Vellisubbalan v. The Director, Director, Department of School Education & Anr., Anr , W.P. (MD) No. 2406/2016 decided on 14.06.2015, is distinguishable as it pertains to different 17 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 facts and issues, involving human error rather than malpractice. Moreover, as per the legal maxim "Judiciis posterioribus fides est adhibenda",, the later Supreme Court judgment dated 13.07.2017, which attained finality, must prevail over the earlier High Court decision. 3.2.15. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 13.07.2017 ha has attained finality. The applicants have no legal right to reopen or re-litigate re litigate settled issues. Their termination orders are non-stigmatic stigmatic and procedurally valid. The judgments relied upon by them are factually and legally distinguishable. Consequently, the the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed on merits as well as on the grounds of res judicata.
3.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the actions of the respondents were strictly in accordance with directives from higher authorities and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any relief.
18Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were wrongly declared ared ineligible for minor or technical lapses in filling out OMR sheets, such as not shading a column or use of whitener/blade. Hon'ble Madras High Court in T. Vellisubbaian vs. Director, Dept. of School Education (supra) has held that such minor errors ca cannot disqualify a meritorious candidate. Several candidates in similar circumstances have been reinstated by the Department of Posts after review, as prima facie malpractice could not be established. The applicants committed no deliberate malpractice, and the alleged violations are baseless, mechanically applied, and not supported by the Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled to consideration and reinstatement.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
19
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 6.1 In Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar, Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"7. Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public ser service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of the list of other candidates, which would have been more unfair and unjust, are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice.
well-recognised It cannot be equated with a case where a st student is found copying in the examination or where an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of several candidates or where he is charged with misconduct or misbehaviour. The direction not to write roll number was clear and e explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated, the issue of bona fide or honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even if not specifically provided, did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised characterised as arbitrary, nor did it amount to denial of equal opportunity -- rather, the reverse may be true. The Tribunal appears to have been swayed by principles applied by this Court where an examinee is found copying or using unfair means. But in doi doing so, the Tribunal ignored a vital distinction -- that there may be cases where the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power or by the absence of any expectation that hearing shall be afforded. The rule of hearing has been construed strictly in academic disciplines, and it must be construed even more strictly in cases where an examinee is competing for a Civil Service post. The very nature of the competition requires it to be fair, above board and confidence confidence-inspiring. If this is ignored, ignored, it is not only against public interest but also erodes the social sense of equality. The Tribunal, in issuing directions, approached the matter technically and attempted to make out much where it would have been the better part of discretion to refus refuse interference.
The Tribunal completely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion, its order cannot be maintained." 20 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 6.2 In the factual matrix of the case, as highlighted above, it is not in dispute that show-cause show cause notices were issued to the applicants nts alleging the use of whitener, overwriting, or incorrect bubbling of roll/registration numbers. The applicants explained that such minor clerical lapses were inadvertent and did not amount to acts of malpractice or fraud. Despite this explanation, the D Department terminated their services without conducting any departmental inquiry and without furnishing CCTV footage, invigilator reports, or CFSL authentication, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The present case, therefore, has to be examined amined in light of the fact that the impugned orders in respect of the applicants were issued pursuant to the observations made in Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India& & Ors.,(supra), Ors.,(supra), which pertained to the same examination and selection process in question. 6.3 Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.02.2014 issued by the Department of Posts, the applicants appeared in the written examination comprising Paper Paper-I (Aptitude Test) and Paper-II II (Typing/Computer Test). Upon evaluation, they were declared successful and appointed to the posts of 21 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 PA/SA in Pay Band ₹5200-20200 20200 with Grade Pay ₹2400, and they duly joined their respective postings. However, the result of the said examination was cancelled by the competent authority. Aggrieved by this action, several candidates approached different Benches of this Tribunal. The CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, by order dated 18.03.2016, quashed the cancellation; however, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, by judgment dated 16.08.2016, upheld the same. The matter ultimately reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.(supra), (supra), wherein, by order dated 13.07.2017, the Court held that the entire examination was not vitiated and directed that only those candidates specifically found guilty of malpractice could be proceeded proceeded against, while the others were to be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages.
6.4 The operative directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar (supra) were as under:
"We make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to take action against those persons who have violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared in more than one centre. Such violations will also be treated as malpractice.22
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 We further make it clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters. However, we also make it clear that those candidates who have not completed the course but were in the process of completing the course un until the impugned action was taken may be permitted to complete the course/training provided they are not suspected of any malpractice."
6.5 Illustratively, reference may be made to the impugned order dated 01.01.2020 rejecting the representation of the Applicant plicant No.1, Shri Mahipal, relevant paras of which read as under:
Para 11:
"Para The Roll No. in the OMR sheet of Shri Mahipal is 161170720315, whereas the applicant has written the 161170720315, Roll No. in the OMR sheet as 161110720315 161110720315. Thus, it is clear that the fifth digit digit of the Roll No. differs between the OMR sheet and the data entry evaluation sheet. Therefore, it is true that the Roll No. is mismatched in the OMR sheet and the data entry evaluation sheet of the applicant.
Para 12:
No comments.
Para 13:
It was mentioned mentioned at Point No. (5) of the Instructions on the OMR Sheet that:
"The answer sheet will be processed by electronic means, i.e., computer/OMR scanners, which read only bubbles/circles/ovals. Invalidation of the answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filli filling will be the sole responsibility of the applicant."
The undersigned has gone through the representation of Shri Mahipal and hereby rejects the representation of Shri Mahipal received by this office on 03.06.2019." 23 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 6.6 Similar orders were issued to all the applicants on almost identical lines.
6.7 We find that the said impugned orders have been issued in disregard of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar (supra). The respondents have not established that the applicants indulged in any malpractice such as appearing in more than one examination centre. Hence, the applicants' cases do not fall within the ambit of malpractice. On this short point alone, the respondents have failed to make out any case of wrongdoing. Moreover, Monu Tomar (supra) categorically held that only candidates specifically found guilty of malpractice could be proceeded against, while others must be reinstated with consequential benefits and 50% back wages. The burden of proof rested upon the respondents to establish that the applicants indulged in such malpractice. The show-cause cause notices and impugned orders are silent on this aspect, despite the explicit directions of the Apex Court. There is no allegation of impersonation or misrepresentation esentation by the applicants that could justify such drastic action.
24Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 6.8 The respondents have failed to establish, by any cogent material, that the applicants indulged in "malpractice." The burden of proving malpractice is heavy and cannot rest on mere suspicion picion or conjecture.
6.9 In Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025; SLP (Civil) No(s). 26860 26860- 26863 of 2023 -- Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.) & Ors., Ors., decided on 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:--
"36. There is also an urgent need to discourage the mechanical application of cancellation orders affecting large groups of appointees without differentiation. Service jurisprudence in India must evolve to reflect a nuanced, fact-specific fact approach ach that separates the legally sustainable appointments from those that are vitiated. It is neither just nor desirable to extinguish the careers of deserving employees merely for administrative convenience or to avoid the labour of segregation. A practice of indiscriminately declaring entire batches of appointments as void undermines not only the morale of sincere employees but also the credibility of the public administration. This Court deems it necessary to underscore that in all future cases of large large-scale appointment irregularities, authorities and courts must mandatorily consider the possibility of segregation and 19 apply the doctrine of severability before taking the extreme step of cancellation.
37. Courts, therefore, must exercise heightened care a and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments. The doctrine of severability must not be relegated to a post-
post-facto exercise; it ought to inform the judicial inquiry from the threshold. EarlyEarly- stage discernment of whether a appointments can be segregated based on sanctioned strength, eligibility, and 25 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 absence of wrongdoing, enables the court to preserve what is lawful while excising only what is vitiated. Such an approach aligns with constitutional morality, protects institutional credibility, and ensures that administrative institutional missteps do not culminate in judicial overcorrection.
6.10 In cases based on circumstantial evidence, courts must guard themselves against the danger of basing conclusions on mere suspicion, however strong it may be.
ex v. Hodge, (Rex Hodge (1838) 2 Lew 227; Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Pradesh [1952] SCR 1091).
6.11 In Criminal Appeal No. 3977 of 2025 (@ Special Leave 2025 Vandana vs. State of Petition (Criminal) No. 9317 of 2025) Maharashtra decided on 11.09.2025 Maharashtra, 11.09.2025, it has been observed as under:
"It is apt to mention that it is well well-established principle of law that suspicion, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof.
9. Secondly, the court below have rested essentially on visual inference of overwriting to hold tampering stood established. No handwriting or forensic expert opinion was obtained regarding the authorship of alleged tampering. This court in Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 has observed:
Pradesh1, "10. Evidence of the identity of hand writing receives treatment in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act.. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act also makes relevant the opinion of a hand writing 26 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 expert (S. 45)) or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is said to have written a particular writing. Thus, hus, besides direct evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (S. 73)) is comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of the CCourt or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.
11.Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific compcomparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience, In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply y its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to becorof v an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjecsubjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings aree by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only 1 (1966) SCC OnLine SC 55 when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the, opinion whether of the expert or other witness."
10. While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has bee been made in the 27 Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020 presence of a witness, non-examination non examination of an expert or any other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution. Therefore, the courts below treated "apparent overwriting"
overwriting" as conclusive which approach is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt."
6.12 In the present case, there are no specific allegations against the applicants sufficient to reach a definite conclusion of malpractice. The rejection of thei their representations has been made in a cryptic manner, with only generic observations such as "wrong roll number,"
"use of whitener," or "invalid bubbling," without any corroborative evidence. These reasons, being wholly conjectural and unsupported by materi material proof, cannot sustain the drastic penalty of termination. Moreover, it is noted that the applicants' OMR sheets were duly evaluated, and their names appeared in the merit list. When the career of a candidate is at stake, the Court must act with circumspection ection and insist on corroboration through reliable direct or circumstantial evidence before concluding that there was large-scale large scale malpractice or use of unfair means.28
Item No. 56 (C-4) O.A. No. 1612/2020
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1 In view of the detailed analysis and discussion above, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders issued to the respective applicants. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants with all consequential benefits within a period of two months months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7.2. The O.A. is allowed under the aforesaid terms.
Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/