Allahabad High Court
Shailesh Pradhan And 10 Ors. vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 22 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 94
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 07.01.2020 Delivered on 22.01.2020 Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27172 of 2015 Petitioner :- Shailesh Pradhan And 10 Ors. Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rashid Ali,Ashok Khare,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,S.K. Srivastava,Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rakesh Kumar Pandey,S.C.,S.K. Verma,Vivek Ratan Agrawal with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41944 of 2015 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vivek Ratan Agrawal with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36198 of 2015 Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Pal Respondent :- Union Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Pooja Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Ratan Agrawal with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31084 of 2015 Petitioner :- Shadab Hasan Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vivek Ratan Agrawal with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30891 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rakesh.Kumar.Pandey Asgi.,Vivek Ratan Agrawal Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. As the controversy in all the five connected writ petitions is same, as such they are being heard together and decided by a common order.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by petitioners assailing the order dated 27.04.2015 issued by Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Varanasi whereby, services of petitioners stand terminated.
3. Facts in brief are, that Union of India (for short "Bank") which is a nationalized bank made an advertisement inviting application for 21 posts of house keeper-cum-peon for Varanasi and Chandauli Region on 14.05.2014, out of which four posts were reserved for SC, five were reserved for OBC and two were reserved for handicapped candidates. Clause 4A of the advertisement provided for educational qualification that candidate should be 10th or equivalent pass, but 10+2 or equivalent not passed/ failed. Clause 5 and 5A provided for relaxation of educational qualification for certain categories. The advertisement dated 14.05.2014 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to writ petition. The entire recruitment process was conducted/ looked after by one Sri D. Behera, Senior Manager (HR) posted at Regional Office, Varanasi of the Bank.
4. Pursuant to advertisement, 1525 applications were received and after interview provisional appointment letter was issued on 01.08.2014 and petitioners were required to appear for medical test on 04.08.2014. Provisional appointment letters issued on 01.08.2014 have been brought on record as Annexure-4. Pursuant to direction issued on 28.07.2014, all petitioners appeared for medical examination on 04.08.2014 at Apollo Hospital, Varanasi. All the selected candidates joined service on 05.08.2014 at the respective branches.
5. It appears that some complaints were received by Bank pertaining to recruitment process with serious allegations that entire recruitment process undertaken was not fair. The Central Vigilance Department also directed an investigation in the matter. It appears that Central Office of the Bank i.e. Department of Personnel & HR, Manpower Planning and Recruitment Division, Mumbai issued directives dated 07.08.2014, keeping the recruitment process in abeyance. The said letter is part of record as Annexure-CA-1.
6. As the Regional Office ignored the directives of Central Office, vigilance enquiry was conducted into the complaints regarding irregularities in the recruitment process. Number of shortcomings were found in the investigation which are as under:
"a. That the details of the applications received pursuant to the advertisement, were not kept on record.
b. Call letters to the eligible candidates were reportedly sent through ordinary post and copies of the same were not retained, nor entered into the dispatch register.
c. The concerned officers did not allot roll numbers to the eligible candidates.
d. No list of eligible candidates had been prepared.
e. The final selection list of 21 candidates as well as the list of waitlisted candidates prepared by the Regional Office, Varanasi had many undeserving/ failed candidates.
f. Unauthorised alterations of marks had been done.
g. Manipulations in the marks were made by the Officer concerned.
h. Eligibility of some candidates with regard to their educational qualification as per clauses 4A and eligibility of candidates falling in 'Relaxed Category' as per clauses 5 and 5A was not followed and the selections were irregularly made.
i. The list of candidates so selected, as well as waitlisted candidates were not published or circulated and records of the same are not available in the Regional Office.
j. The candidates in the merit list did not find place in the selection list.
k. Candidates were found to have wrongly selected.
l. That undue hurry was shown by the concerned officers at Regional Office, Varanasi and the 21 candidates were called over on telephone on 04.08.2014 itself for pre-joining medical check up.
m. The pre-joining medical check up was done at M/s Apollo Clinic, Varanasi on 04.08.2014 itself. However, there is no record that the bank had requested/ asked the said clinic to conduct the said medical test.
n. All the medical examination reports bear the date 04.08.2014. As very detailed medical examination was conducted on 04.08.2014 of the 21 candidates and reports were also delivered on the same date, it created doubt about the genuineness of the said reports.
o. On strict verification, the Clinic/ Hospital authorities confirmed in writing that the medical reports had in fact been prepared on 08.08.2014, but had been submitted by putting the date as 04.08.2014 at the request of the bank officials.
p. The candidates so selected were immediately made to join on 04.08.2014 and on 05.08.2014 respective branches were also informed of the postings.
q. This was all done by the concerned delinquent officers to circumvent all directives/ action of the Bank's Central Office regarding the recruitment process.
r. That the Central Vigilance Department carried out investigation in the matter.
s. The candidates so selected were not confirmed and were on probation.
t. During the vigilance investigation conducted, the above serious irregularities were found."
7. Thus, decision was taken by Bank that as recruitment process being tainted and highly irregular, entire recruitment/ selection process was to be cancelled and fresh selection process to be initiated. On 26.04.2015, Bank made publication in the Newspaper that entire recruitment/ selection was annulled/ cancelled. The publication made in Newspaper has been brought on record as Annexure-CA-2.
8. Pursuant to cancellation of selection, services of 21 candidates so selected was terminated on 27.04.2015, which was informed by respondent no. 3. Thereafter, on 23.05.2015, matter was referred to Central Bureau of Investigation, the said communication has been brought on record as Annexure-CA-3. CBI completed its investigation in month of December, 2017, thereafter, filed charge-sheet before CBI Court, Lucknow, and on 24.01.2018, cognizance was taken by Court in the matter and summons were issued to some of petitioners and other persons involved in recruitment process. The order taking cognizance in the matter as well as charge-sheet has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to second supplementary counter affidavit.
9. Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 27172 of 2015 submitted that order impugned dated 27.04.2015, terminating the services of petitioners was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to them without calling for any explanation, reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Shridhar vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur, 1990 Supplementary SCC 157 and Shrawan Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar, 1992 (6) SLR 718.
10. The second limb of argument is, that fourth condition attached to termination order speaks about forged educational qualification of candidates which is stigmatic, and the same finds place in all termination orders of 21 candidates, which will take away right of petitioners to be considered in future. It was submitted that once allegations of producing forged documents pertaining to educational qualification was made, opportunity of hearing was must.
11. Lastly, Sri Budhwar submitted that in view of Para 6 of counter affidavit accepting fault on the part of Bank Officials while making selection, it was thus the duty of Bank before cancelling entire selection process to have segregated the tainted candidates from the untainted ones and entire selection should not have been cancelled by one stroke of pen. Reliance has been placed by him upon decision of Apex Court in case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (11) SCC 356.
12. The argument made by Sri Budhwar has been adopted by Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing in Writ-A No. 31084 of 2015, by Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel appearing in Writ-A No. 36198 of 2015 and by Sri M.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing in Writ-A No. 41944 of 2015 and Writ-A No. 30891 of 2015.
13. Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank submitted that termination order simply states that entire recruitment process has been tainted because of irregularities committed by Bank's own officials/ personnel on four grounds which have to be read together. He submitted that termination order was not stigmatic, as it does not indicate misconduct or lack of integrity or makes any allegation or anything offensive against these candidates whose services are terminated. The selection process has been cancelled/ scrapped only on account of grave irregularities committed on part of officials of the Bank. It was also contended that in Paras 9 and 15 of counter affidavit, it has been specifically provided that petitioners may participate in fresh recruitment/ selection process as and when initiated by Bank.
14. He further submitted that Vigilance Department had directed for investigation, but when matter was referred to CBI and was investigated, charge-sheet was filed, on which cognizance was taken against certain officials of the Bank as well as some of candidates, who are petitioners in the present petition.
15. Sri Agrawal invited attention of the Court to charge-sheet annexed to the second supplementary counter affidavit at Pages 30 to 39, where appointment of number of selected candidates was found illegal and void and names of officials involved in said process was mentioned. The charge-sheet further revealed that entire selection process smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness, as all norms were vitiated by Bank's concerned officials at each stage of selection. Emphasis was placed that CBI report also revealed that huge amount of unaccounted cash has passed hands and was deposited in Bank accounts of seniors officers and their family members, thus, it was not possible to state or demonstrate as to how many candidates have availed undue advantage whereas deserving candidates have not been considered.
16. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Tanvi Sarwal vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, (2015) 6 SCC 573, Union of India and others vs. O. Chakradhar, JT 2002 (2) SC 191, Krishna Yadav and another vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 (II) LLJ SC, Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, JT 2009 (15) SC 201 and Abhyudya Sanstha vs. Union of India and others, JT 2011 (6) SC 195.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
18. The two questions which emerges for consideration are that whether respondent authorities violated principles of natural justice by passing order dated 27.04.2015, terminating services of all petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing, alleging appointments were made on the basis of forged educational qualification, and secondly whether the Bank Officials were justified in cancelling the entire selection before segregating tainted from untainted candidates of the select list, without following the decision of Apex Court in case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra).
19. The fact reveals that there is no dispute as to the fact that 21 posts of house keeper-cum-peon was advertised by Bank for its Varanasi and Chandauli region on 14.05.2014, and selections were made, pursuant to which provisional appointment letters were issued on 01.08.2014. It is also not in dispute that complaints were made, acting on which Central Office of Bank had issued directives on 07.08.2014 for keeping recruitment process in abeyance. Selected 21 candidates went under medical check up before joining on 04.08.2014 at Regional Office.
20. As Central Vigilance Department carried out investigation in the matter, in which it was found that many officers of Regional Office of the Bank were involved, the decision was taken for cancelling the entire selection process and initiate fresh selection process. On 26.04.2015, publication was made in Newspaper and, thereafter, on 27.04.2015, termination order was issued.
21. The contention of Sri Budhwar that opportunity of hearing was not given to petitioners before passing the order impugned violated principles of natural justice, as it was stigmatic cannot be accepted, as from the perusal of order impugned, the fourth clause which provides for forged educational qualification cannot be read in isolation to the other three clauses which provides that in the process of selection and appointment, there was violation of rules and regulations and marks awarded during interview were also changed and tampered and select list was not prepared as per the rules, which clearly provides that no allegation has been made against the candidates but against persons who were in-charge for making such selection and appointments.
22. This recruitment/ selection was not a case where process was cancelled at the whims and fancies of any officer or authority but after the investigation of vigilance authorities that serious irregularities surfaced which led to Central Office of Bank to take such decision. The matter was also referred to Central Bureau of Investigation, and after recruitment procedure was investigated and completed, in December, 2017, charge-sheet was filed by CBI before CBI court, Lucknow, which took cognizance in the matter on 24.01.2018, summoning some of selected candidates along with number of officers of the Bank. The decision relied upon in case of Shridhar (supra) is not applicable in the facts of case as in the present case, there was grave irregularities done by persons in-charge of recruitment/ selection. Similarly, reliance placed in case of Shrawan Kumar Jha (supra) is also distinguishable to the facts of the case.
23. The second point canvassed that Bank authorities should have segregated from the select list, tainted and untainted candidates and the entire selection should not have been scrapped by one stroke of pen also does not find any support from decision relied upon in case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra), as in that case, decision was taken in haste and services were terminated without any evidence being brought on record, relevant Paras 71 to 73 are extracted hereasunder:
"71. Furthermore, a decision in undue haste was taken. So far as the nominated officers are concerned, whereas a note containing 90 pages was sent to the Chief Secretary of Punjab on 22.5.2002, the services of all the officers were terminated on the next day. Apart from the materials which have been relied on in the report, no further evidence was probably brought in between 23.5.2002 and 24.8.2002 when the services of the executive officers were terminated.
72. It is, thus, furthermore, beyond anybody's comprehension as to why action had to be taken in undue haste.
73. We do not intend to suggest that in any emergency it was not permissible but we have not been shown that any such emergent situation existed. It was in any event necessary for the State to show as to how the records moved so as to satisfy the conscience of the court that there had been proper and due application of mind on the part of the concerned authorities. An action taken in undue haste may be held to be mala fide. [See Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 65]"
24. Whereas in the present case, after complaint having been received, matter was investigated by Vigilance Department, and after detailed enquiry grave irregularities committed by officers of the Bank was found and on the report being submitted, Central Office proceeded to cancel the entire selection process. Furthermore, report of Vigilance Department was fortified upon investigation carried out by Central Bureau of Investigation and charge-sheet so submitted. Thus, decision relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
25. As in Para 50 of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case, Apex Court had held that only in cases where tainted and untainted candidates can be segregated, selection should not have been cancelled in entirety, but in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable, then orders of termination could have been issued. The Court also went on to categorise cases into different categories. .Relevant Paras 50 to 52 are extracted hereasunder:
"50. In those cases also tainted cases were separated from the non-tainted cases. Only, thus, in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable, could en masse orders of termination could have been issued.
51. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates.
52. We may, at this stage, notice that the following cases would fall in the different categories which are enumerated hereinbelow:
(i) Cases where the 'event' has been investigated:
(a) Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, (1993) 1 SCC 154.
(b) Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165.
(c) Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, (1994) 5 SCC 663.
(d) Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 742.
(e) Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146.
(f) B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 533.
(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded:
(a) O. Chakradhar (supra)
(b) Krishan Yadav (supra)
(c) Hanuman Prasad (supra)
(iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not made:
(a) Dilbagh Singh (supra) at para 3
(b) Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994) 5 SCC 695
(c) Anand Kumar Pandey (supra) at para 4.
(d) Hanuman Prasad (supra)
(e) B. Ramanjini (supra) at paragraph 4.
(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and the appointments were found to be contrary to law or rules:
(a) Krishan Yadav (supra)
(b) Pramod Lahudas Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 749 wherein appointments had been made without following the selection procedure.
(c) O. Chakradhar (supra) wherein appointments had been made without typewriting tests and other procedures of selection having not been followed."
26. As it is evident that in investigation, it was found that officers of Bank were involved in mass irregularity committed during recruitment/ selection process and after investigation, Central Office came to conclusion and set aside the selection and ordered for fresh selection.
27. Apex Court in case of Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh and others, (1993) 1 SCC 154, while upholding cancellation of select list held that no opportunity of hearing was required as it did not violate principles of natural justice as far as far as Members of Selection Board or the selectees were concerned. Relevant Paras 8 and 10 are extracted hereasunder:
"8. Affording of an opportunity of hearing by an Administration to the members of a Selection Board Constitute by it, before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared by such Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the reason that no member of a Selection Board acquires any vested right or interest in sustaining a select list prepared by the Selection Board. Besides, there is no personal right or interest of any member of a Selection Board which could be adversely effected, by the Administration cancelling a select list of candidates prepared by Selection Board when it is found to have been prepared by the selection Board in unfair and injudicious manner. Therefore, there can arise no need to any Administration to afford an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts, prepared by it. Hence, we must hold that the CAT was wholly wrong in setting aside the Chandigarh Administration's order by which the dubious select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU prepared by Selection Board constituted by it had been cancelled, on its erroneous view that non-affording of an opportunity of hearing tot the members of the Selection Board before cancelling its select list had vitiated that order. This would be our answer to the question adverted to at the outset.
10. What remains for our consideration is that contention of the learned counsel for respondents that the respondents who were the selectees in the select list should have been heard by the Chandigarh Administration before it cancelled that list as a dubious one. According to learned counsel, non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents- selectees before the select list in which they had found places as selected candidates for appointment in the vacant civil posts of conductors in CTU should be regarded by us as a sufficient ground not to disturb the Judgment of the CAT under appeal, although the Judgment itself is not rendered on that basis. The contention of learned counsel on our view, misconceived and hence calls to be rejected."
28. Similarly, in Krishan Yadav and another vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 165, wherein selection conducted by Subordinate Selection Board for taxation inspectors were put to challenge, Apex Court came to conclusion on the basis of report of CBI that fresh selection should be held.
29. The Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Anand Kumar Pandey and others, (1994) 5 SCC 663, while dealing with written examination followed by viva voce test held for selection and recruitment to various posts of non-technical popular categories in Eastern Railway held by Railway Recruitment Board, wherein Railway authorities cancelled selection and empanelment of candidates from one of centres, refused to interfere and held that there was no violation of rules of natural justice. Relevant Paras 4 and 9 are extracted hereasunder:
"4. Mr Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants has placed on record the copies of the complaint, inquiry reports and noting part of the file (confidential) for our consideration. Secretary (Vigilance), Railway Board directed an inquiry into the complaint through General Manager (Vigilance). Preliminary investigation report was sent to the Secretary on 30-11- 1988. Finally the Deputy Director (Vigilance) held detailed inquiry into the allegations and sent his report dated 19-7-1989 to the Executive Director (Vigilance). The report was examined in detail at various levels in the Railway Ministry and finally a decision was taken that 35 candidates of Centre No. 115 be subjected to a fresh written examination. It was further decided that marks already obtained by them in the viva voce examination would be taken into account. It was further directed to complete the fresh examination within a period of one and a half months. The file shows that the decision was finally approved by the Minister-in- charge.
9. This Court has repeatedly held that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Applicability of these rules depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. Out of the total candidates who appeared in the written test at the Centre concerned only 35 candidates qualified the test. In that situation the action of the railway authorities in directing the 35 candidates of Centre No. 115 to appear in a fresh written examination virtually amounts to canceling the result of the said centre. Although it would have been fair to call upon all the candidates who appeared from Centre No. 115 to take the written examination again but in the facts and circumstances of this case no fault can be found with the action of the railway authorities in calling upon only 35 (empanelled candidates) to take the examination afresh. The purpose of a competitive examination is to select the most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. It is entirely different than an examination held by a college or university to award degrees to the candidates appearing at the examination. Even if a candidate is selected he may still be not appointed for a justifiable reason. In the present case the railway authorities have rightly refused to make appointments on the basis of the written examination wherein unfair means were adopted by the candidates. No candidate had been debarred or disqualified from taking the exam. To make sure that the deserving candidates are selected the respondents have been asked to go through the process of written examination once again. We are of the view that there is no violation of the rules of natural justice in any manner in the facts and circumstances of this case."
30. Thus, looking to facts of the case as the entire recruitment/ selection stood vitiated on the ground that irregularities were committed by officers of the Bank themselves while giving appointment letters to candidates who were seeking appointment, and termination order will not become stigmatic in view of the reason contained in the order on the basis of fake educational qualification certificates, as this clause has to be read along with other three clauses which simply put the onus on the Bank's own officials/ personnel who were responsible for termination/ cancellation/ scrapping of the entire selection process, the order does not indicate any misconduct or lack of integrity nor any allegation or anything offensive has been said against the petitioners in the order of termination.
31. As the petitioners who were on probation and their services had not been confirmed by Bank, thus, the fact coming to notice of the higher authorities and irregularities found in investigation, the authorities rightly scrapped the recruitment process permitting petitioners to again apply in fresh selection process and not debarring them.
32. The benefit as claimed in case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) cannot be extended in the case of petitioners as in that case decision was taken in haste without any adverse material on record, nor any evidence was brought so as to cancel the selection process, while in the present case investigation revealed the entire chain of mass irregularities committed and, further, in CBI charge-sheet even the money trail was brought to notice as far as monetary benefit passed on to officials of the Bank while conducting recruitment.
33. As the Apex Court in Tanvi Sarwal (supra) while considering the matter of unfair means/ cheating/ leakage of question paper, conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education for All India Pre Medical and Pre Dental Entrance Test held that segregation of 45 identified candidates said to be the beneficiaries, was not a solution to the problem and it held for examination afresh. Relevant Paras 18 and 19 are extracted hereasunder:
"18. As has been noticed hereinabove, the disclosures in the investigation suggest that the benefit of answer key has been availed by several candidates taking the examination, by illegal means. Though as on date, 44 such candidates have been identified, having regard to the modus operandi put in place, the numbers of cellphones and other devices used, it is not unlikely that many more candidates have availed such undue advantage, being a part of the overall design and in the process have been unduly benefited qua the other students who had made sincere and genuine endeavours to solve the answer paper on the basis of their devoted preparation and hard labour. In view of the widespread network, that has operated, as the status reports disclose and the admission of the persons arrested including some beneficiary candidates, we are of the opinion, in view of the strong possibilities of identification of other candidates as well involved in such mal practices, that the examination has become a suspect. As it is, the system of examination pursued over the decades, has been accepted by all who are rationale, responsible and sensible, to be an accredited one, for comparative evaluation of the merit and worth of candidates vying for higher academic pursuits. It is thus necessary, for all the role players in the process, to secure and sustain the confidence of the public in general and the student fraternity in particular in the system by its unquestionable trustworthiness. Such a system is endorsed because of its credibility informed with guarantee of fairness, transparency authenticity and sanctity. There cannot be any compromise with these imperatives at any cost.
19. Segregation only of the already 44 identified candidates stated to be the beneficiaries of the unprincipled manoeuvre by withholding their results for the time being, in our comprehension cannot be the solution to the problem that confronts all of us. Not only thereby, if the process is allowed to advance, it would be pushed to a vortex of litigation pertaining thereto in the foreseeable future, the prospects of the candidates would not only remain uncertain and tentative, they would also remain plagued with the prolonged anguish and anxiety if involved in the ordeal of court cases. Acting on this option, would in our estimate, amount to driving knowingly the students, who are not at fault, to an uncertain future with their academic career in jeopardy on many counts. Further, there would also be a lurking possibility of unidentified beneficiary candidates stealing a march over them, on the basis of the advantages availed by them through the underhand dealings as revealed. Having regard to the fact, that the course involved with time would yield the future generations of doctors of the country, who would be in charge of public health, their inherent merit to qualify for taking the course can by no means be compromised."
34. The contention of selected candidates cannot be accepted for segregating tainted from untainted as in such cases where monetary benefits had been passed on to people in-charge of recruitment/ selection, it is not possible as to how many candidates have availed undue advantage whereas many deserving candidates could not have been considered due to such act, thus, to bring fairness and transparency in the recruitment/ selection, entire selection has to go paving way for a fair and impartial recruitment so as to bring the most competent and talented person to the job for which advertisement was made.
35. Therefore, I find that the Bank rightly proceeded to terminate the selection of 21 candidates on 27.04.2015, paving way for fresh and fair recruitment for which present petitioners can participate.
36. The order impugned needs no interference, writ petitions are devoid of merits and, are, hereby dismissed. However, no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 22.01.2020 V.S.Singh