Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 3 Others vs Amit And 4 Others on 22 April, 2020
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 5.12.2019 Delivered on 22.4.2020 In Chamber Case :- WRIT - A No. - 632 of 2018 Petitioner :- Union of India and 3 others Respondent :- Amit and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Prasad Pandey, Prashant Pandey, Suresh Singh, Amit Saxena Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging Judgment and order dated 14.7.2017 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT), Allahabad in Original Application No. 330/00823 of 2016 (Amit Vs. Union of India and others), Original Application No. 330/00982 of 2016 (Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) and Original Application No. 330/00798 of 2016 (Sonu Yadav and another Vs. Union of India and others) (hereinafter referred to as OAs') whereby Tribunal has allowed aforesaid OAs filed by respondents 1 to 4 by directing petitioners to issue appointment letters to respondents 1 and 4 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of order dated 14.7.2017 and further to take decision in respect of respondents 2 and 3, namely, Pawan Kumar and Sonu Yadav as they are guilty of concealment and misrepresentation of facts. Their case was directed to be considered provided their guilt does not cause any prejudice to the selection process.
2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for respondents.
3. Facts giving rise to present writ petition may be summarised in brief as follows:- A notification dated 13-19/12/2004 was issued whereby 2265 vacancies of MATE (SSK) Military Engineering Services were notified for direct recruitment. Out of 2265 vacancies so notified, 20 vacancies were to be filled by petitioner 4 Commander Works Engineer (AF) Bamrauli, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'C.W.E. (A.F.)').
4. According to aforesaid notification, qualification prescribed for the post advertised was High School, i.e., 10th pass. The age of applicant should be between 18-27 years. Three years relaxation in age was granted to OBC category candidates whereas relaxation of 5 years in age was granted to SC/ST category candidates.
5. Respondents 1 to 4, who belong to OBC category, duly applied pursuant to aforesaid advertisement. Upon scrutiny, their application forms were found complete in all respects. Accordingly, respondent 1 Amit (OA No. 330/00823 of 2016, Amit Vs. Union of India) was allotted Roll No. 174 and was to undertake his written examination from the centre at Kendriya Vidyalaya (Old Cant), Teliyarganj, Allahabad. Respondent 2 Pawan Kumar (OA No.330/00982 of 2016, Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) was allotted Roll No. 1236 and was to appear for his written examination from the Centre situate at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station, Bamrauli, Allahabad. Respondent 3, Sonu Yadav and Respondent no.4 Kumari Sakshi Singh (O.A. No.330/00798 of 2016, Sonu Yadav and another Vs. Union of India and others) were allotted Roll Nos. 2370 and 1652 respectively. They were to appear for their written examination from the Centre situate at Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad.
6. Written examinations were held on 10.5.2015. Respondents 1 to 4 duly appeared in the written examination, and were declared successful in written examination. Consequently, Petitioner 4, C.W.E.(A.F.) issued letter dated 9.11.2015 directing Respondents 1-4 to appear for document verification during the period 18th to 25th November 2015 between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Head Quarters Chief Engineer (AIR Force), Bamrauli, Allahabad, i.e., petitioner 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.E. (A.F.)') herein.
7. According to Respondents 1-4, they duly appeared for document verification during abovementioned period and the documents on verification were found correct and genuine in all respect. However, in spite of aforesaid, no consequential action regarding appointment of respondents 1 to 4 on the post of MATE, was taken by petitioners.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, respondent 3 Sonu Yadav, i.e., applicant no.1 in O.A. No. 330/00798 of 2016 (Sonu Yadav and another Vs. Union of India and others) filed an application dated 10.5.2016 under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'R.T.I. Act, 2005') seeking certain information. This application was replied by petitioner 3, i.e., C.E. (A.F.), vide letter 1.6.2016. By means of aforesaid reply, a list of 20 successful candidates dated 5.11.2015 was provided in which the name of respondent no.1 Amit, respondent no.2 Pawan Kumar, respondent no.3 Sonu Yadav, and applicant/respondent no.4 Kumari Sakshi Singh were mentioned at serial nos. 1, 2, 7 & 6 respectively, under the unreserved category.
9. Subsequently, C.E. (A.F.) vide letter dated 30.1.2016 declared a list of nine selected candidates in which Respondent 1 & 2 were shown at serial nos. 1 & 2 respectively in General Category; and Respondents 3 and 4 were shown at Serial Nos. 2 and 1 respectively under O.B.C. Category.
10. In spite of aforesaid, all of a sudden an advertisement dated 5.6.2016 was issued by C.W.E. (A.F.) and published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala whereby it was declared that vacancies published through employment notice no. 34303/LRS 12-13/E1B (S) dated 19.12.2014 for which written examination was conducted on 10.5.2015 have been cancelled. It was further provided that candidates may apply for the post of MATE if they are interested in seeking employment in M.E.S. as per (fresh) Employment Notice No.901402/LRS/2015-16/E1C(2) dated 16.05.2016.
11. According to aforesaid fresh employment notice dated 16.5.2016 qualification prescribed for the post of MATE was altered. It was now provided that a candidate applying for the post of MATE should be High School and also have ITI diploma in particular trade in which the candidate desired to appear. The vacancies in MES at Head Quarter Chief Engineer (Central Command, Lucknow) (hereinafter referred to as 'C.E. (C.C.)') were distributed in eight categories of Mates for total 100 vacancies of MATES at Head Quarter C.E. (A.F.).
12. Thus, aggrieved by the advertisement dated 5.6.2016 coupled with the failure on the part of the petitioners in not issuing appointment letters to applicant/respondents 1 to 4 they approached Tribunal by filing following OAs. Prayers claimed in OAs filed by respondents 1-4 was as under:-
Original Application No.330/00823 of 2016, Amit Vs. Union of India and others:-
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.04.2016, notification dated 16.05.2016 published in Amar Ujala News Paper and notice of information dated 5.6.2016 published in Amar Ujala passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the respondent no.3.
B. Issue writ or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to issue letter of appointement to the applicamtn forth with on the post of Mates (SSK) CWE (AF) Allahabad in pursuance of the employment Notice No.34303/LRS 12-13/EIC(S) dated 13-19, December, 2014 whose complete examin (Written + Document Verification) had been conducted on 10.05.2015 and 18-24, November, 2015 by CWE (AF) Bamrauli, Allahabad/Respondent No.4.
C. Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant."
Original Application No. 330/00982 of 2016, Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others:-
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.04.2016, notification dated 16.05.2016 published in Amar Ujala Newspaper and notice of information dated 05.06.2016 published in Amar Ujala passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the respondent No.3.
B. Issue writ or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to issue letter of appointment to the applicant forth with on the post of Mates (SSK) CWE (AF) Allahabad in pursuance of the employment Notice No.34303/LRS 12 13/EIC S) dated 13-19, December, 2014 whose complete exam (Written & Document Verification) had been conducted on 16.05.2015 and 18 24, November, 2015 by CWE (AF) Bamrauli, Allahabad/Respondent No.4.
C. Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant."
Original Application No. 330/00798 of 2016, Sonu Yadav and another Vs. Union of India and others:
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.04.2016, notification dated 16.05.2016 published in Amar Ujala News paper and notice of information dated 05.06.2016 published in Amar Ujala passed by the respondent no.2.
B. Issue writ or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to issue letter of appointment to the applicants forth with on the post of Mates (SSK) CWE (AF) Allahabad in pursuance of the employment Notice No.34303/LRS 12-13/E1C(S) dated 13-19, December, 2014 whose complete exam (Written + Document Verification) had been conducted on 10.05.2015 and 18-25, November, 2015 by CWE (AF) Bamrauli, Allahabad/Respondent No.4.
C. Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the O.A.to the Applicant."
13. Above mentioned OAs were contested by petitioners. Accordingly, counter affidavit on behalf petitioners herein was duly filed in all the OAs.
14. Perusal of record shows that it was pleaded by respondents 1-4 before Tribunal that pursuant to notification dated 13-19/12/2014, petitioners duly applied against 20 posts of MATE to be filled by C.W.C. (A.F.). Application forms submitted by respondents 1-4 were found complete in all respects and accordingly they were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the written examination wherein they actually appeared was held on 10.5.2015. According to respondents, since they were successful in written examination so held. C.W.C. (A.F.) issued letter dated 9.11.2015 directing respondents 1 to 4 to appear for verification of documents in between 18th-25th November 2015 between 9 am to 5 pm on any working day in the office of C.E. (A.F.), Bamrauli, Allahabad. Respondents duly appeared for document verification which were found to be correct and genuine. Thereafter aforesaid selection process came to be finalised, vide order dated 27.1.2016 passed by a duly constituted board of officers. Consequently, on 27.1.2016, C.E. (A.F.) directed C.W.E. (A.F.) to issue appointment letters immediately to selected candidates in order of merit. It was also pleaded that petitioner 3 vide order dated 4.2.2016, directed petitioner 4 to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates within a period of seven days from receipt of approval of Board proceedings, i.e., upto 6.2.2016. Aforesaid letter contains a clear recital that directions so issued is according to clause 68 of SOP wherein it was clearly provided that appointment letter be issued by appointing authority within seven days of receipt of approval of proceedings.
15. On behalf of respondents it was also urged before Tribunal that in spite of letter dated 4.2.2016, no appointment letter has been issued by petitioners. It was pleaded that in stead of issuing appointment letter to respondents 1 to 4, petitioner 3, has informed petitioner 2 that 10 vacancies of LRS 2012-13 have been re-appropriated from CWE (Air Force) Bamrauli to CWE (Hills) Pithauragarh vide Head Quarters letter dated 7.4.2016 due to some complaint against recruitment process at CWE (Air Force) Bamrauli vide letter dated 22.04.2016. It was also urged before Tribunal that Board of officers conducted enquiry from 5.5.2016 to 18.5.2016 at Air Force Head Quarter, Bamrauli, Allahabad and reported that there was no fault on the part of candidates who appeared in the selection process for appointment on the post of MATE (SSK) in pursuance to the notification dated 19.12.2014.
16. Petitioners contested OAs by filing counter affidavit. On behalf of petitioners it was urged before Tribunal that respondents have no legal or fundamental right to claim appointment. As the process of selection has not been finalised, no irregularity or illegality has been committed by petitioners in cancelling selection process. Complaints were received regarding various anomalies in selection process and therefore decision taken by petitioners for cancellation of selection for 20 post of MATES pertaining to petitioner 4 cannot be faulted with.
17. Tribunal considered rival submissions urged before it and also examined record. Tribunal concluded that recruitment of MATE was finalized by Board of Officers which was duly approved by C.E. (A.F.), vide its letter dated 30.6.2016. Tribunal further held that name of respondents 1 to 4 were also published in the select panel properly signed by three members in the presence of Presiding Officer on 5.11.2015. Tribunal further considered the letter dated 27.1.2016 issued by the higher Authority whereby one I Mani Prasad, IDSE, SE, CWE (AF) Bamrauli was directed to issue appointment letters to nine candidates. Tribunal has referred these letters in exentio and has observed as follows:-
"The relevant portion of the letter dated 27.0.2016 is reproduced below:-
"1,..............
2. You are asked to issue appointment letter for 08 nos. candidates (05 for Gen and 03 for OBC Cat) vide above cited letter under reference, but mean time one more candidate from SC, Cat also reported for verification of original documents and selected. Now appointment letters of following 09 Nos. candidates for various cat at per merit list be issued immediately."
6. Below this paragraph the roll numbers of the selected candidates are given in which the roll numbers of the applicants are seen. In the same letter in para no.4 it is written as under:-
"4. BOO along with connected documents for finalization/issue of appointment letter to the selected candidates of 20 Nos. from various cat of selected panel list submitted by your office under letter number 100008/LRS/12-13/25/E1C dated 07 Nov 2015 for approval of CE is forwarded herewith duly approved".
Para no. 6 of the same letter is also quoted below:-
"6. It is once again directed to issue appointment letter to selected candidates as per merit list details mentioned in para 2(a) to (c) above".
7. The bare reading of this letter dated 27.01.2016 clearly reveals that the merit list of the applicants published herein was duly aproved by the BOO and accordingly reportedly through various directive letters direction was given for issuance of appointment letter to the applicants."
18. Tribunal has also referred to letter dated 4.2.2016 and has observed as follows:-
"It is also seen that after this letter dated 27.01.2016 again a letter dated 04.02.2016 was written to the same Mr. I.Mani Prasad directing him to issue appointment letter. The paragraph 3 of the letter dated 4.2.2016 is quoted hereunder:-
"1........
2..........
3. As per SOP guidelines, you are hereby once again directed to issue appointment letter within 07 days from receipt of approved board proceedings, i.e., upto 06 Feb 2016".
Sd/-
(OC Janeel) Brig CE(AF) Allahabad.
8. It is also seen in the bottom of the letter dated 04.02.2016 some speical commengs are also writte which is reproduced below:-
"Copy to:-
By Fax Board proceedings of selected panel candidates
Chief Engineer has already been handed over to CWE (AF)
Central Command Bamrauli on 30 Jan 2016 and per above mentioned
PIN 900450 SOP, appointment letter should be issued within
O56 APO seven days from receipt of approved Bps.
CONFIDENTIAL"
19. Having noted the contents of letter dated 4.2.2016, Tribunal concluded that the recruitment process as well as selection was completed and, therefore, repeated letters were issued by higher authorities for issue of appointment letters to selected candidates including respondents 1-4.
20. On the issue regarding bifurcation of vacancies from CWE (Air Force) Bamrauli to CWE (Hills), Pithoragarh, Tribunal concluded that according to petitioners herein, aforesaid bifurcation was done on account of certain complaints made against recruitment process at CWE (Air Force), Bamrauli. However, no such material was brought on record by petitioners herein on the basis of which it could be held that serious anomalies were detected in selection process.
21. Tribunal further held that though it has been pleaded by petitioners herein that new advertisement has been published with certain changes in qualification and applicants i.e. respondents herein have been granted relaxation but they could not point out any such circumstance from the notification itself nor any such document substantiating the same was appended along with the counter affidavit.
22. Lastly Tribunal held that applicant/respondent 2 Pawan Kumar and applicant/respondent Sonu Yadav are guilty of concealing material facts as they have not disclosed the fact that they are related to employee of MES. Such act falls under the category of concealment of fact. Since aforesaid applicants have not strictly adhered to the instructions of notification, their case is liable to be considered in the light of law laid down in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471. Accordingly, Tribunal directed that in respect of aforesaid two candidates who are guilty of concealment of fact their case be considered by petitioners herein provided their guilt does not cause any prejudice to the selection process. In respect of other two applicants, i.e. respondents 1 and 4 Tribunal allowed their applications and directed petitioners to issue appointment letters to them within a period one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
23. Feeling aggrieved by Judgment and order dated 14.7.2017 passed by Tribunal, petitioners have now approached this Court by means of present writ petition. It may be noted here that applicant/respondent 2 and 3 have not filed separate writ petition challenging order of Tribunal.
24. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned Judgment and order dated 14.7.2017 passed by Tribunal is not sustainable in law and fact. He submits that there were various anomalies and irregularities in the selection and therefore petitioners rightly cancelled the selections so made. Since no final select list was prepared applicants/respondents 1 to 4 have no fundamental right to claim issue of appointment letters. In support he has placed reliance on S.Shankersan Das Vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47.
25. Mr. Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand has supported the impugned Judgment and order passed by Tribunal, by referring to the findings recorded therein. He further submits that the right of a selected candidate to claim appointment can be denied only on strong reasons. Such a decision should not be rapacious. The counter affidavit filed by the petitioners before Tribunal does not mention any good or strong reasons on the basis of which decision to issue fresh advertisement could be sustained. He has referred to Judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Rajesh P.U. , Puthuvalnikathu and others 2003 (7) SCC 285.
26. After hearing counsel for parties, the question which has arisen for determination in present writ petition is:-"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Judgment and order passed by Tribunal can be sustained".
27. Perusal of record shows that petitioners pleaded before Tribunal that there were various anomalies in the selection process pertaining to respondents 1 to 4 herein and, therefore, selection process was cancelled and fresh advertisement was issued.
28. However, upon examination, we find that counter affidavit filed by petitioners before Tribunal depicts a very sorry state of affairs. The counter affidavit filed by petitioners in O.A. No. 330/00823 of 2016 (Amit Vs. Union of India and others) contains following recital in paragraphs 3, 7, 8, 23 and 25:-
"3. That in reply of the contents of paragraph No.1 of the original application, it is submitted that Board of Officer detailed by Headquarter Chief Engineer Central Command, (hereinafter referred to as HQ CE CC), Lucknow found certain irregularities in recruitment process. Hence HQ CE CC Lucknow cancelled the entire recruitment process of Mates for the year 2012-13 at Commander Works Engineer (Air Force) (hereinafter referred to as CWE (AF), Bamrauli, Allahabad. Since the recruitment process was not completed and final list was not finalized. Hence appointment cannot be given.
7. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs No.4 (8) to 4(10) of the original application, it is submitted that the final merit list was not finalized since certain irregularities were found.
8. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs No.4 (11) to 4(16) of the original application, it is submitted that the Board of Officer detailed by Headquarter CE CC, Lucknow found certain irregularities in recruitment process for the year 2012-13 vacancies of mates. Hence in the powers of Headquarter CECC, Lucknow entire recruitment process for the year 2012-13 for mates at CWE (AF) Bamrauli, Allahabad was cancelled and published in Amar Ujala News Paper. The vacancy of CWE (AF) Bamrauli have been diverted to CWE Pithoragarh and recruitment carried out vide Notification No.901302 (LRS/2015-16 (E1C(2) dated 16-05-2016 has not relation with Notification No. 34303/LRS/12-13/E1B(S) dated 19-12-2014. Notification dated 16-05-2016 is not fresh notification to earlier notification i.e., dated 19-12-2014. Notification dated 16-05-2016 is entirely new notification which is based on SRO 48 dated 08-0702013 published in The Gazette of India dated 13.07.2013, refer Column '7' which clearly indicate the educational and other qualification required for direct recruitment as : Matriculation Pass from recognized Board and Industrial Training Institute Pass certificate from a recognized Institute of relevant trade". Notification dated 16-05-2016 has not relation to recruitment for the year 2012-13. Notification dated 19-12-2-14 was based on Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi. Notification dated 08-02-2011 which inidate "matriculation Pass from a recognized Board or Industrial Training Institute Pass certificate from a recognized Institute in relevant Trade" which was superseded by SRO dated 08-07-2013. The criteria taken in both the recruitment process were based on the rules and regulation in force at that time. It is brought out that the recruitment of Mates for the vacancy of 2012-13 has been completed and fresh notification given was for the Mate vacancies for the year 2015-16. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances the interim order dated 01.07.2016 may please be vacated forthwith. A photocopy of Gazette Notification dated 13.07.2013 and 08-02-2011 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 & CA-2 respectively to this counter affidavit.
23. That the contents of paragraphs No.5(vii) to 5 (ix) of the original application are false, baseless and wrong as such are denied. A detailed reply has already been furnished in foregoing paragraphs. However, it is submitted that complaint regarding irregularities in recruitment process was received and Board of Officers were detailed to investigate lapses in LRS 2012-13. Based on recommendation of Board of Officers the entire recruitment process for LRS 2012-13 of CWE (AF) Bamrauli was cancelled. Since NAC was valid till 04th May 2016, vacancies of CWE (AF) Bamrauli were re-appropriated to CWE (Hill) Pithoragarh. Accordingly all the candidates who have been issued appointment letter, have joined service. Considering all facts, HQ CE CC, Lucknow issued letter to all selected candidates to apply fresh in recruitment process in current vacancies released under LRS 2015-16. The averments made by the applicant in paragraph under reply regarding selection of the applicant has been finalized are totally false and concocted. Select panel was not finalized. The list endorsed by the applicant is only tentative which was under scrutiny and no final select panel was declared.
25. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the present original application is liable to be dismissed and the applicant is not entitled to any relief as sought for and the stay order dated 01.07.2016 may please be vacated forth with.
29. When averments made in above quoted paragraphs of counter affidavit filed by petitioners are examined, it is apparent that petitioners did not specifically lay any factual foundation regarding the alleged anomalies in the selection process concerning respondents. Except for casual statements in various paragraphs of counter affidavit that complaints were made regarding anomalies in selection process, petitioners have tried to defend the decision taken by them.
30. We are afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that on the strength of averments made in the counter affidavit as noted above action taken by the petitioners to cancel selection process can be justified. Time and again, Courts have held that though a selected candidate does not have indefeasible right to claim appointment, but simultaneously it has also been held that such a decision to refuse appointment letter should not be rapacious.
31. As noted above, petitioners have miserably failed to point out the anomalies in the selection process. Therefore, decision taken by petitioners to cancel selection process and issue a fresh advertisement is not backed by any diligent exercise to flush out the anomalies which necessitated cancellation of selection process and issue of fresh advertisement.
32. In aforesaid perspective, law laid down by Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. Rajesh P.U., (supra) is squarely applicable. For ready reference paragraph 6 of the Judgment which is relevant for the controversy in hand is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the Report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions - which Report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court, there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written examination - either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions in loud speaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of Invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed situation by reevaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment. There was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee."
33. Thus, when the facts of the present case are examined on the touchstone of the observations made in paragraphs 6 of the Judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U. (supra) the inescapable conclusion is that Tribunal did not commit any illegality or perversity in passing impugned Judgment and order.
34. For all the reasons stated above, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date:- 22.4.2020 Ram Murti