Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay vs D/O Post on 31 October, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINITRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 1671/2018
MA 1864/2018
Reserved on: 17.10.2019
Pronounced on: 31.10.2019
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
1. Ajay,
S/o Shri Satya Narayan,
Aged about 24 years,
VPO Jassaur Kheri, The Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar-124505,
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani-127021
2. Paras
S/o Shri Hansraj
Aged about 26 years,
Kheri Jasaur, Kheri Jasur (18),
Jassaur Kheir, Jhajjar,
Haryana-124505 Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122016
3. Sandeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Rajender Singh,
Aged about 25 years,
VPO, Nahra Distt, Sonepat-131103
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Hisar Division, Hisar-125001.
4. Shri Kapil Dev
S/o Shri Yes Dev,
Aged about 26 years,
Village-Kharman,
Tehsil- Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhahhar-124507
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001
5. Sh. Sandeep (GDS)
S/o Sh. Ramphal, Aged about 35 years,
VPO-Bhambhewa, Bham Bhewa(9),
Ditt. Jind- Haryana-126113
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Karnal Division, Karnal-122001.
2 OA 1671/2018
6. Shiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Singh,
Aged about 25 years
Hanuman Nagar Gali No.7
Near Sugar Mill Kami Road Sonipat,
Haryana 131001
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Faridabad Division, Faridabad-132001.
7. Smt. Santosh Kumari
W/o Sh. Amit S/o Sh. Satpat Singh
Aged about 24 years
Vill Tihar Kalan, P.O. Tihar Baghru,
Sonipat Haryana,
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Karnal Division, Karnal-122001.
8. Sh. Sajan
S/o Sh. Sunder Singh
Aged about 27 years
Village Jagdishpur, P.O. Rathdana,
Distt. Sonepat Haryana,
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Ambala Division, Ambala-133001
9. Sh. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh.Karambir Singh
Aged about 25 years
VPO Pinana Sonepat, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra-136118
10. Pankaj Rohilla
S/o Sh. Ram Bhaj,
Aged about 28 years
VPO Mahra Tehsil Gohana Distt. Sonipat
Gohana-131301 Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Ambala Division, Ambala-133001.
11. Sh. Amit
S/o Azad
Aged about 23 years
VPO Kansala Thana Sampla
Tehsil Rohtak Haryana 124406
Group 'C' employee
3 OA 1671/2018
Post of Postal Assistant
Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani-127021
12. Sh. Sameer Kumar
S/o Sh. Chandbeer Singh
Aged about 28 years
H.No. 760/29, Tilak Nagar, Petrol Pump,
Rohtak, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
13. Shri Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jaipal
Aged about 29 years
R/o VPO Julana, Ward No. 01,
Tehsil- Julana, Distt. Jind-126101
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Hisar Division, Hisar.
14. Deepika Madan
S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Madan
Aged about 27 years
R/o H.No.345, Braham Colony,
Sonipat
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Karnal Division, Karnal.
15. Shri Sunil
S/o Shri Ramesh,
Aged about 26 years
R/o H.No. 553, VPO Kurar,
District- Sonipat, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Karnal Division, Karnal
16. Shri Sushil Kumar
S/o Sh. Dariyav Singh
Aged about 25 years
R/o Village Tewari, PO Bajana Khurd,
Tehsil- Gannaur, District-Rohtak,
Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Rohtak Division, Rohtak
17. Shri Sandeep Kumar
S/o Shri Mahender Singh
Aged about 26 years
R/o Village Kothal Khurd,
4 OA 1671/2018
PO Kothal Khurd, District-Mahendergarh,
Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
18. Shri Umed Singh
S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan
Aged about 30 years
R/o Village Ahmedpur Majra,
PO Bicpari, Tehsil-Gohana,
District-Sonipat, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Sorting Assistant
New Delhi Division, New Delhi.
19. Shri Bir Singh
S/o Shri Laxman Singh
Aged about 27 years
R/o VPO Kharkhara (Akoda),
District- Mohindergarh, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Sorting Assistant
New Delhi Division, New Delhi.
20. Shri Amit Rathee
S/o Sh.Mahender Singh
Aged about 26 years
R/o 667/25, Bhagwan Nagar,
Rohtak Road, Jind-126102, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Sorting Assistant
New Delhi Division, New Delhi
21. Shri Parveen Kumar
S/o Sh.Shamsher Singh
Aged about 30 years
R/o VPO Sunarian Kalan,
Rohtak-124001, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Haryana Circle Ambala.
22. Shri Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Pal
Aged about 24 years
R/o VPO Madanpura,
Tehsil-Uklana Mandi,
District-Hisar, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Hisar Division, Hisar.
5 OA 1671/2018
23. Shri Ravinder
S/o Sh. Rambhaj
Aged about 24 years
R/o VPO Mehrana, Jhajjar, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Rohtak Division, Rohtak.
24. Renu
W/o Sonu S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
Aged about 27 years
R/o VPO Shamlo Kalan,
Tehsil & District Jind-126114,
Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Hisar Division, Hisar
25. Shri Hardeep
S/o Shri Jagdish
Aged about 27 yars
R/o Village Khaper, PO Bhongra,
Block Uchana, District Jind, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra.
26. Shri Sudhir
S/o Sh Rajender Singh
Aged about 25 years
R/o VPO Khizerpur Ahir,
Tehsil- Gannaur,
District- Sonipat, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra.
27. Shri Sanjay
S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
Aged about 25 years
R/o VPO Satrod Kalan,
District- Hisar, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant
Hisar Division, Hisar.
28. Shri Ishwer
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan
Aged about 26 years
R/o VPO Kharar Alipur,
District- Hisar, Haryana,
Group 'C' employee
6 OA 1671/2018
Post of Postal Assistant,
Hisar Division, Hisar.
29. Shri Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Sheokaran
Aged about 28 years
R/o VPO Gurera, Tehil-Siwani,
Bhiwani-127406, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Sorting Assistant,
New Delhi Division, New Delhi.
30. Shri Yogesh
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
Aged about 25 years
R/o VPO Dabodha Kalan,
Thana Bahadurgargh,
District-Jhajjar, Haryana.
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
31. Shri Tarun Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
Aged about 24 years
R/o VPO Dadri Toye, Tehsil-Jhajjar,
District-Rohtak, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon.
32. Shri Deepak Chillar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Chillar
Aged about 26 years
R/o H.No. 349/4, Friends Colony,
Gali No.1, Line Par, Bahadurgarh,
Haryana-124507
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Faridabad Division, Faridabad.
33. Shri Sanjay Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sharma
Aged about 27 years
R/o Jaji, PO Juan, Sonipat,
Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Sonipat Division, Sonipat.
34. Km. Dimple Verma
D/o Sh.Babu Lal Verma
Aged about 24 years
7 OA 1671/2018
R/o VPO Beri,
Pana-Chulyan, Saraffo Wali Gali
District-Jhajjar, Haryana
Group 'C' employee
Post of Postal Assistant,
Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani. ... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur )
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Min. of Communication
& Information Technology,
Department of Posts through its
Secretary, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Postal Service,
Department of Posts (Recruitment Division)
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
3. Superintendent Post Offices
Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani, Haryana
4. Superintendent Post Offices
Gurgaon- Division, Gurgaon, Haryana
5. Superintendent Post Offices
Hisar Division, Hisar, Haryana
6. Superintendent Post Offices
Karnal- Division, Karnal, Haryana
7. Superintendent Post Offices
Faridabad Division, Faridabad, Haryana
8. Superintendent Post Offices
Ambala Division, Ambala
9. Superintendent Post Offices
Kurukshetra- Division, Kurukshetra,
Haryana
10. Superintendent Post Offices
Rohtak- Division, Rohtak.
11. Superintendent Post Offices
Sonipat Division, Sonipat,
Haryana.
8 OA 1671/2018
12. Superintendent RMS
Delhi Division, Nanakpura,
New Delhi-110021. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Jain )
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur, counsel for applicants and Mr. R.K.Jain, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all documents produced by both the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
A. Quash and set aside "(a) Memo. No. B-1/7/Rectt, PAs 2013 & 2014 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Office of Supdt. Post Offices, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani-127021, whereby the Applicant No.1 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-14.
(b) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/ 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001, whereby the Applicant No. 2 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(c) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt./DR/RA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No. 3 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(d) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/ 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001, whereby the Applicant No. 4 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(e) Memo. No. B-I/93/Rectt/ 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Office of Supdt. Post Offices, Faridabad Division, Faridabad-121001, whereby the Applicant No.5 was removed from the list of selected candidates in 9 OA 1671/2018 respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(f) Memo. No. B-15/SantoshKumari dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr.Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal- 132001, whereby the Applicant No.6 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(g) Memo. No. B-11/Sajan dated 11.01.2018 passed by Office, Supdt. Post Offices, Ambala Division, Ambala- 133001, whereby the Applicant No. 7 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(h) Memo. No. B-4/34/Rectt/ 2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra-136118, whereby the Applicant No. 8 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(i) Memo. No. B-11/Pankaj Rohilla dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Ambala Division, Ambala-133001, whereby the Applicant No. 9 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(j) Memo. No. B-I/7/Rectt/PAs 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani- 127021, whereby the Applicant No.10 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(k) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/ 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001, whereby the Applicant No.11 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(l) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No.12 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(m) Memo. No. B-15/Sandeep dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Division, Karnal-132001, whereby the Applicant No. 13 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
10 OA 1671/2018(n) Memo. No. B-15/DeepikaMadan dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr.Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No. 14 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(o) Memo. No. B-15/Sunil dated 12.01.2018 passed by Sr.Supdt. Post Offices, Karnal Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No. 15 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(p) Memo. No. B-2/13/Rectt/PA/ 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Sr.Supdt. Post Offices, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, whereby the Applicant No.16 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(q) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/ 2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001, whereby the Applicant No. 17 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(r) Memo. No. B-2/Recruitment/Umed Singh/SA/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Superintendent, RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi-110021, whereby the Applicant No. 18 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(s) Memo. No. B-2/Recruitment/Bir Singh Yadav/SA/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Superintendent RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi-110021, whereby the Applicant No. 19 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(t) Memo. No. B-2/Recruitment/AmitRathee/SA/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Superintendent RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi-110021, whereby the Applicant No.20 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(u) Memo. No. STA/24-259 dated 10.01.2018 passed by Director Postal Services (HQ) Haryana Circle, Ambala- 133001, whereby the Applicant No. 21 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
11 OA 1671/2018(v) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No.22 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(w) Memo. No. B-2/13/Rectt/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices Rohtak Division, Rohtak, whereby the Applicant No.23 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(x) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No. 24 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(y) Memo. No. B-4/34/Rectt/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra-136118, whereby the Applicant No. 25 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(z) Memo. No. B-4/34/Rectt/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra-136118, whereby the Applicant No. 26 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(aa) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No. 27 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(bb) Memo. No. B-2/4/Rectt/DR/PA/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Hisar Division, Hisar-125001, whereby the Applicant No. 28 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(cc) Memo. No. B2/Recruitment/Sandeep Kumar/SA/2013-14 dated 12.01.2018 passed by Superintendent RMS 'D' Division, New Delhi-110021, whereby the Applicant No. 29 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
12 OA 1671/2018(dd) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001, whereby the Applicant No.30 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(ee) Memo. No. B-II/5/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-122001, whereby the Applicant No. 31 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(ff) Memo. No. B-1/93/Rectt/2013-14 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Faridabad Division, Faridabad-121001, whereby the Applicant No.32 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013- 2014.
(gg) Memo. No. B-4/7/2014 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices, Sonipat Division, Sonipat-121001, whereby the Applicant No.33 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
(hh) Memo. No. B-1/7/Rectt/Pas 2013 & 2014 dated 11.01.2018 passed by Supdt. Post Offices Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani-127021, whereby the Applicant No.34 was removed from the list of selected candidates in respect of PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2013-2014.
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."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that the applicants appeared in the selection process of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant by filling up application forms against the Notification of the respondent-Postal Department issued on 21.02.2014. Tests were conducted in different circles. The examination was conducted by a Private Agency, namely, CMC Limited. The applicants appeared in aptitude (paper-I) and computer/typing test (Paper-II). In the said selection process, including 13 OA 1671/2018 the applicants 199 candidates were appointed as Postal Assistant.
Subsequently the Postal Directorate conducted vigilance enquiry in the entire recruitment process on the basis of complaints received from various quarters wherein serious malpractices were alleged on the part of the candidates and the employees of the CMC limited. On the basis of the enquiry, the respondents cancelled the examination results of 5 circles and the services of all the 199 candidates of all the five circles were terminated in 2015. The said termination orders were challenged by filing Original Applications before various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Ultimately, the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 10513/2016 titled Monu Tomar and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the en masse termination of all the candidates and directed that the specific malpractice resorted to by each individual candidate be identified and Show Cause Notice (SCN) and an opportunity of explaining their individual malpractice be accorded to them and their representation be considered and final decision be taken with respect to each of the candidates. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted below:-
"Permission to file SLP granted. Delay condoned We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and we have also heard learned Additional Solicitor General who has been instructed by officers of the concerned Department. We have also perused the report of the Vigilance Committee set up by the Department. We find from a perusal of the report of the Vigilance Committee that the entire examination was not necessarily vitiated but some persons who are suspected of having used malpractices in the examination of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in five circles, viz., Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and 14 OA 1671/2018 Gujarat have actually been identified. The respondents will proceed against them in accordance with law but since they are quite a few in number, a formal show cause notice is dispensed with. However, they may be personally called and explained the allegations against them and given some reasonable time of about a week or ten days to give their reply to the allegations and then a final decision may be taken.
Those persons who are not suspected of having committed any malpractices and who have undergone the prescribed courses may be reinstated with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages with liberty to the respondents to take action against them in case subsequently it is found in the investigation that they have indulged in some malpractices.
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.
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 until the impugned action was taken may be permitted to complete the course/training provided they are not suspected of any malpractice.
The appeals and special leave petitions stand disposed of.
Pending applications are also disposed of."
As per the statistics submitted by counsel for the respondents initially 199 candidates were terminated. In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 101 candidates were reinstated. Four (4) candidates did not report and Six (6) candidates resigned/expired; and as specific violation of specific instructions were identified and SCNs were issued to 88 candidates. After considering the reply given by the candidates, 51 were reinstated out of 88. Similarly after consideration of the reply, specific orders were passed holding that there is use of malpractice by the candidates in with respect to Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets by 15 OA 1671/2018 manual interference and on that basis 37 candidates were not reinstated.
Out of those 37 candidates 34 candidates have filed the present OA. With respect to each of the candidates SCN was issued, referring to specific facts and violation of specific instructions given on the reverse of the OMR sheet particularly with respect to bubbling of the OMR sheet which the machine could not have evaluated automatically by scanning, and without the manual interference at the behest of the candidates with the connivance with the officials of the CMC limited. After considering the representation each of the applicants orders were passed giving details of the consideration of the representation and the malpractice in which they were involved vide order dated 11.01.2018. The malpractice alleged with respect to each of the candidates is enumerated in the OA itself at para 4.15 which is extracted below:-
Sl.No. Name of the Applicant Malpractices alleged in the Reason given in show cause notice termination order 1 Ajay (Applicant No.1) Marked invalid registration Applicant did not number in OMR sheet darken the correct corresponding circle in Serial No. 3 of OMR sheet. Thus OMR sheet could not be processed by computer and the same was evaluated manually. Thus a clear case of malpractice.
2. Paras (Applicant No. 2) Applicant did not mark roll no., Applicant did not mark registration no., category and roll no., registration question booklet series. no., category and Applicant did not give his own question booklet series email ID. in the OMR sheet. Thus there is a clear malpractice.
3. Sandeep Kumar Marked wrong roll no. on OMR The applicant marked/ (Applicant No.3) sheet filled up wrong/ incorrect roll no. in bubbles in the OMR sheet. Thus his answer sheet should not have been evaluated and the same was evaluated manually. Thus clear case of malpractice.16 OA 1671/2018
4. Kapil Dev (Applicant Applicant had written wrong The applicant had No.4) registration no. in the OMR wrongly filled the sheet registration no. and thus the answer-sheet were not evaluated automatically by the OMR scanning machine and the same was evaluated manually.
Thus a clear case of malpractice.
5. Sandeep (Applicant The applicant used correcting The applicant had No.5) fluid to change roll no. on OMR wrongly filled/used sheet. correcting fluid in the space provided for roll no. Hence the answer-
sheet should not have
been evaluated. Thus
clear case of
malpractice.
6. Shiv Kumar (Applicant The applicant did not bubble The applicant did not
no.6) question booklet no. provide information on
serial no. 6 of OMR
sheet. Thus the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus there is
a clear indulgence in
malpractice.
7. Santosh Kumari The applicant has not written The applicant had
(Applicant No.7) question booklet series and wrongly filled/left a
wrongly marked roll no in OMR bubble blank in the
sheet. space provided for roll
no. Hence the answer
sheet is invalid and the
same should not have
been evaluated. Thus a
clear case of
malpractice.
8. Sajan (Applicant No.8) The applicant used fluid at The fluid was used by
option B while marking the the applicant and he
answer of question no. 78 in has been awarded one
part D of OMR in part D of OMR mark for the changed
sheet and he further marked answer. Thus awarding
answer C with pen and got one mark for the
awarded one mark. As per answer where the fluid
instructions no change/cutting was used implies that
/over writing was permitted the OMR sheet was
and correcting fluids should not evaluated manually.
be used. Thus a clear case of
malpractice.
9. Sunil Kumar (Applicant The applicant did not bubble The applicant did not
no. 9) the question booklet no. in the bubble question booklet
OMR answer-sheet under serial no. in OMR sheet. Thus
no. 6. a clear case of
malpractice.
10. Pankaj Rohilla The applicant filled up the The applicant was
(Applicant No. 10) wrong registration no. and also allotted registration
marked wrong bubble in no.DOP019530682
registration no. The applicant Whereas he has written
did not give his own email ID. his registration no. as
DOPO15530682 and
also marked bubble
accordingly. The OMR
sheet was not
evaluated by electronic
means and the same
has not only been
evaluated but the
applicant has also been
declared successful,
17 OA 1671/2018
which establishes the
level of malpractice by
the examination
conducting agency and
the candidate.
11. Amit (Applicant no. 11) The applicant used fluid in OMR The applicant used fluid sheet in answering questions. for correcting the answer in the OMR sheet and he has been awarded one mark for the changed answer.
Thus awarding one
mark for the answer
where fluid was used
implies that the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus, there is
clear malpractice.
12. Sumeer Kumar The applicant has not marked The applicant has not
(Applicant No. 12) the question booklet no. in the marked the question
OMR answer sheet. booklet no in the OMR
answer sheet, which is
in violation of
instruction no. 5 given
on the reverse of OMR
sheet. These violations
on the part of agency
reiterate that OMR
sheets were not
evaluated automatically
by the OMR scanning
machine and the same
is evaluated manually.
Thus the applicant had
indulged in malpractice.
13. Rakesh Kumar The applicant had marked/filled The applicant had filled
(Applicant No. 13) up his registration number up his registration
incorrect/incomplete on the number incorrect/
OMR answer sheet. incomplete in bubbles
in the OMR answer
sheet. As per the
instruction No. 2, his
answer sheet should
not have been
evaluated, whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the laid
down instructions which
implies that the instant
OMR sheet was
evaluated manually.
Thus there is clear
malpractice.
14. Deepika Madan The applicant has not written The applicant has
(Applicant No. 14) her complete Roll No. on OMR wrongly filled/left a
sheet. bubble blank in the
space provided for roll
no. tantamount to
violation of instructions
no. 2 mentioned at
back of OMR answer
sheet because answer
sheet was to be
processed by electronic
means i.e. computer,
OMR scanner which
means only bubbles
/circle/ovals. Hence the
answer sheet is invalid
and should not have
been evaluated. Thus
there is clear
18 OA 1671/2018
malpractice.
15. Sunil (Applicant No.15) The applicant has not marked The applicant has not
registration number in OMR marked registration
sheet. number in OMR sheet.
The applicant has
wrongly filled/left a
bubble blank in the
space provided for
registration no. which
tantamount to violation
of instructions no.2
mentioned at back of
OMR answer sheet
because answer sheet
was to be processed by
electronic means i.e.
computer, OMR scanner
which means by
bubble/ circle /ovals.
Hence the answer sheet
is invalid and should
not have been
evaluated. Thus, there
is clear malpractice.
16. Sushil Kumar (Applicant The applicant has marked The applicant has filled
No. 16) wrong registration No. and has up wrong regn. No.
used fluid in registration No. (DOP025934422) and also in bubbles. instead of (DOP0 25984422). Hence as per instruction no. 14 the answer sheet should not have been evaluated but it was evaluated and the candidate was declared selected. Thus there is clear malpractice.
17. Sandeep Kumar Applicant failed to darken the The applicant failed to (Applicant No. 17) some bubbles properly in darken the some respect of roll number and bubbles properly in question booklet number in the respect of roll number OMR answer sheet. and question booklet number in the OMR answer sheet, which is in violation of instructions given on he reverse of the OMR sheet. These violations on the part of agency reiterate that OMR sheets were not evaluated automatically by the OMR scanning machine. The OMR sheet is evaluated manually. Thus there is a clear indulgence in malpractice.
18. Umed Singh (Applicant The applicant has not marked The applicant marked No. 18) category and question booklet wrong roll no., not series and also marked wrong marked category and roll no. in the answer sheet. not marked question booklet series in the answer sheet, which is in violation of the instruction No. 2 and 5 given on the reverse of OMR sheet. Thus the OMR sheets were not evaluated automatically by the OMR scanning machine. Thus there is 19 OA 1671/2018 a clear indulgence in malpractice.
19. Bir Singh (Applicant No. The applicant has marked The applicant has
19) wrong question booklet number marked wrong question in answer sheet. booklet number in answer sheet. The OMR sheet were evaluated automatically by the OMR scanning machine.
Thus there is a clear
indulgence in
malpractice.
20. Amit Rathee (Applicant The applicant did not The applicant did not
No. 20) encircle/bubble the question encircle / bubble the
booklet number in answer question booklet
sheet. number in answer
sheet. The OMR sheet
were not evaluated
automatically by the
OMR Scanning Machine.
Thus there is a clear
indulgence in
malpractice.
21. Parveen Kumar The applicant used fluid at The fluid was used by
(Applicant No.21) option A while marking answer the applicant and he
of question No. 41 in Part-B of was awarded one mark
OMR answer sheet. He further for the changed
marked answer C with pen and answer. Awarding one
got awarded one mark for it. mark for the answer
where fluid was used
implies conclusively
that the OMR sheet was
evaluated manually.
Thus there is clear
malpractice.
22. Anil Kumar (Applicant The applicant has marked/filled The applicant has
no.22 ) up wrong/incorrect registration marked/filled up wrong/
no in OMR answer sheet. incorrect registration
no. in bubbles in OMR
answer sheet, which is
read over by the
scanner machine while
marking the OMR
answer sheet by
electronic means i.e.
computer. His answer
sheet should not have
been evaluated and the
same was evaluated
manually. Thus a clear
case of malpractice.
23. Ravinder (Applicant The applicant used fluid at OMR The applicant used fluid
No.23) answer sheet and got awarded at OMR answer sheet.
marks for it from the The OMR sheet was
outsourcing agency. evaluated manually.
Thus, there is clear
malpractice in the
instant case.
24 Renu (Applicant No. The applicant has not The applicant has not
24) marked/filled in question marked / filled in
booklet number in bubbles on question booklet
OMR answer sheet and she got number in bubbles on
same marks as obtained by OMR answer sheet,
group of eight candidates which is read over by
including her who got same the scanner machine
question paper series. while marking the OMR
answer sheet by
electronic means i.e.
computer. As per
instruction No. 2 her
answer sheet should
not have been
20 OA 1671/2018
evaluated whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the
instructions which
implies that the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus a clear
case of malpractice.
25. Hardeep (Applicant No. The applicant used whitener/ The applicant has used
25) fluid for marking roll no. and whitener/fluid at oval
registration no in the OMR portion at serial no. 2
sheet. and 3 in roll no. and
registration columns
respectively. Thus it is
clear case of
malpractice.
26. Sudhir (Applicant No. The applicant used The applicant used
26) whitener/fluid for marking whitener/fluid/cutting in
registration no. in OMR sheet. figure and oval portion
at serial no. 3 in
registration column.
The applicant used
rubber to erase the
wrong digits and filled
up the correct figures of
registration no. Thus
there is clear case of
malpractice.
27. Sanjay (Applicant The applicant has not marked/ The applicant has not
No.27) filled complete question booklet filled in his question
no. on OMR answersheet. booklet no. completely
in bubbles in the OMR
answersheet which is
read over by the
scanner machine while
marking the OMR
answer sheet by
electronic means. As
per the instruction No.
2 his answer sheet
should not have been
evaluated, whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the
instructions which
implies that the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus it is
clear case of
malpractice.
28. Ishwar (Applicant No. The applicant has marked/filled The applicant has
28) wrong roll no. on OMR answer marked/filled wrong/
sheet. incorrect roll no. in
bubbles in OMR answer
sheet which is read
over by the scanner
machine while marking
the OMR answer sheet
by electronic means i.e.
computer. As per the
instruction No. 2 his
answer sheet should
not have been
evaluated, whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the
instructions which
implies that OMR sheet
was evaluated
manually. Thus it is the
clear case of
malpractice.
21 OA 1671/2018
29. Sandeep Kumar Applicant marked wrong The applicant has
(Applicant No. 29) registration no in the answer- marked wrong
sheet registration no in the
answer sheet, it is
mentioned in the
instruction no. 2 and 14
available on backside of
OMR sheet that if the
candidate has filled up
an incorrect roll
no/registration no
/question booklet
no/series of the
question booklet, his
answer sheet will
become invalid and will
be not be evaluated
and no change/
cutting/overwriting is
permitted and
correcting fluid should
not be used. The
applicant wrote wrong
registration no. The
OMR sheet was
evaluated manually.
Thus, it is clear case of
malpractice.
30. Yogesh (Applicant The applicant has not marked The applicant did not
No.30) question booklet no. in the mark question booklet
OMR answer sheet. no in the OMR
answersheet, which is
in violation of
instruction no. 5 given
on the reverse of OMR
sheet. The OMR sheet
of the applicant was
evaluated manually.
Thus the applicant not
indulged in
malpractices.
31. Tarun Kumar (Applicant The applicant used The applicant used
No.31) whitener/fluid in the OMR whitener in the OMR
sheet. sheet. Thus the
applicant has indulged
in malpractice.
32. Deepak Chhillar The applicant has marked his It is mentioned in
(Applicant No. 32) roll no incorrectly by filling two instruction no.2 that if
bubbles in the same column of candidate has filled up
the roll no in OMR sheet. incorrect roll no/
registration no./
question booklet no
/series of question
booklet then his
answersheet will not be
evaluated. The
applicant marked two
bubbles in the same
column of the roll no.
which implies that OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually which is the
violation of instruction
no. 5 of the instructions
available on the
backside of OMR sheet.
Thus, it is a clear case
of malpractice.
22 OA 1671/2018
33. Sanjay Kumar The applicant used fluid in the It is mentioned in
(Applicant NO. 33) bubble meant for darkening the instruction No. 14 of
roll no in OMR sheet. instructions available on
back side of the OMR
sheet that no change
/cutting/overwriting is
permitted and
correcting fluid should
not be used. As per
instruction no.5 in
instructions at back
side of OMR sheet, the
answer sheet was to be
processed by electronic
means i.e. computer.
Awarding one mark for
the answer where fluid
was used implies that
OMR sheet was
evaluated manually,
thus it is a case of
malpractice.
34. Dimpal Verma The applicant used fluid in It is mentioned in
(Applicant No. 34) marking roll no. in bubbles in instruction no. 2 that if
OMR sheet at serial No. 2 and the applicant has filled
used fluid in OMR sheet but up the incorrect roll no/
score was awarded. registration no/series of
question booklet no/
question booklet no.,
his answer sheet will be
invalid and will not be
evaluated.As mentioned
in instruction No. 14 of
instructions available on
backside of carbonless
copy of OMR sheet that
no change /cutting/
overwriting is permitted
and correcting fluid
should not be used.
The applicant used fluid
and she has been
awarded one mark for
changed answer. As per
instruction no. 5 of the
instruction at backside
of OMR sheet, the
answer sheet was to be
processed by electronic
means i.e. computer.
Awarding one mark for
answer where fluid was
used that OMR sheet
was evaluated
manually. Thus it is a
case of malpractice.
4. The counsel for the applicants vehemently and strenuously
contended that the allegation of malpractices made against these applicants are similar to the allegation of malpractices made with respect to many other candidates who were reinstated after considering their 23 OA 1671/2018 respective representations, whereas the representations of the applicants were not found favour with the respondents. With respect to the above allegations of the counsel for the applicants, as per the direction of the Tribunal, the respondents produced original OMR sheets. In case of one, he had not darkened the bubble with respect to the answer to a particular question in the OMR sheet. The said candidate was not given any marks for not having darkened the bubble for the said question and as such there was no human interference, as such the explanation was accepted.
In the case of OMR sheet of applicant no.1, he had not darkened the bubbles in Serial No. 3 of the answer sheet i.e. Roll No./Registration No hence it could not have been processed by the computer and his OMR sheet could not have been evaluated without human interference, as held by the impugned order. The counsel for the applicants further contended that there is no malpractice committed by the applicants at all, the alleged malpractiqces were minor lapses, and the respondents have mechanically and literally applied the concerned instructions and taking a myopic, unreasonable and arbitrary view and held that the allegations of malpractices were established. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment passed by the Madurai Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P (MD) No. 2406/2015, titled T.Vellisubbaian Vs. The Director Department of School Education and Others and order passed by this Bench in OA No.2467/2017 decided on 23.10.2017, titled Sh. Rohit Kumar and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
5. The counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in consideration of the representations/ explanations of the applicants in each one of the cases. He further submitted that is not only violation of the instructions but there is human 24 OA 1671/2018 interference in such a way that the OMR sheet which could not have been evaluated automatically by OMR scanner were evaluated at the behest of the respective candidates with the connivance of the officials of the CMC Limited. He further submitted that the instructions were very clear and they were published both in Hindi & English. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu & Anr Vs. A.Kalaimani & Ors (Civil Appeal Nos. 6190-6201 of 2019) and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 379/2016 in the case of Kadambinee and 60 others Vs. State of UP and Another.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the law laid down by various Courts and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. B.M. Vjaya Shankar (1992) 2 SCC 206), we find that the impugned orders passed by the respondents with respect to each of the applicants cannot be interfered with.
7. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( A.K.Bishnoi) ( S.N.Terdal) Member (A) Member (J) 'sk'