Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ankit Kumar vs D.G. Ordance Factories on 10 May, 2022
OA No. 330/00938/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad this the 10th Day of May, 2022
Original Application No. 330/00938/2019
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Ankit Kumar aged about 29 years,
S/o Sri Hari Narayan, R/o Plot No.109, United Nagar Sarai,
Maswapur, Kanpur Nagar. PIN-208019 (U.P.)
2. Nizam Ahamad, S/o Shri Jamil Ahamad,
R/o NT/1-356 Arampur Estate,
Kanpur-208009 (U.P.)
.... Applicants.
By Advocate : Shri Jaswant Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New
Delhi.
2. The General Manager/Indian Ordnance Factories/Small Arms Factory,
Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
3. Director General Ordnance Factories, Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
..... Respondents.
By Advocate : Shri L.S. Kushwaha for Shri A.K. Pandey
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative):
Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri L.S. Kushwaha, holding brief of Shri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. This issue has been agitated in an earlier OA No.1234 of 2018 wherein so many other persons had challenged the same order. The present applicants are also similarly placed and have claimed the identical reliefs. Page 1 of 8
OA No. 330/00938/2019
3. The present OA has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by Additional Director Indian Ordnance Factories Kalpi Road, Kanpur whereby the recruitment made in pursuance of Advertisement No.DAVP 10201/11/2800/1213 IN 50/39 dated 16-22 March 2013 for 100 post of Labourer (Semi Skilled) was cancelled after completing all the stages of recruitment on 27.02.2018.
4. The brief facts, according to the applicants are that the respondents advertised 100 posts of Labourer (Semi Skilled) of Group 'C' in the year 2013. The applicants herein in number 16 applied against the advertisement and after following the due process the applicants were issued admit Cards to appear in the written test. Accordingly, the applicants appeared in the written test on 01.06.2014 and after qualifying the written test the applicants appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 06.06.2018. On 03.12.2014, the applicants were called for specimen signatures and thumb impression for completion of codal formalities. According to the applicants after three years through the Employment News dated 27.02.2018 (newspaper), the applicants got to know that the said selection was cancelled. The applicants moved an RTI application to know the reason for non appointment. In reply to the RTI application, the applicants were informed that though the applicants have cleared the test, however, the exam was cancelled. Aggrieved by the decision of cancellation, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking following reliefs :-
"(i) To issue a suitable direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.02.2018 issued by Additional Director, addressed to Senior General Manager Ordnance Factories Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result and issue appointment letters to the selectees.Page 2 of 8
OA No. 330/00938/2019
(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass order or direction as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(iv) To award cost of the application in favour of the applicants."
5. The respondents have filed their counter reply. In the counter reply, the respondents have stated that the applicants alongwith other candidates appeared in the written examination in pursuance of advertisement in March, 2013. Out of total candidates, 125 candidates including the applicants were declared qualified to appear in phase II exam, which was to be held on 16.06.2014. Out of 125 candidates, 120 candidates appeared in the Phase II/ trade test and 05 candidates were absent. After trade test few anomalies were observed on verification from original documents of provisionally selected candidates. It was observed that the signature, photo and thumb impression of some candidates were not matching with the signature, photo and thumb impression in the original documents. Accordingly, CVO/OFB vide letter dated 19.06.2014 directed that appointment letter in this regard should not be released till the vigilance department carries out an investigation. The thumb impression and signature of all the successful candidates taken during various stages should be screened with the help of Government approved Forensic Expert to identify impersonation cases and eliminate any irregularity before issuing the appointment letter. As per direction of CVO/OFB Kolkata, a committee of Officer was formed and the committee found 67 cases suspicious. The cases were forwarded to CFSL, Bhopal for further verification. As advised by CFSL Bhopal 120 provisionally selected candidates were called by Ordnance Factory Kanpur to obtain the specimen signature and thumb impression to identify the same. Only 106 candidates including the present applicants reported. After obtaining the signature and thumb impression the documents were sent to Bhopal for scrutiny. According to the report of CFSL, 60 cases are stated to be OK, 30 Page 3 of 8 OA No. 330/00938/2019 cases were suspicious and 16 cases were for resubmission on the basis of signature as verified by CFSL. The matter was placed before the competent authority on 14.11.2017 along with the report. The competent authority decided to scrap the recruitment process with reference to the advertisement No. 16-22 March 2013 on administrative grounds. The notice regarding the cancellation of the examination was uploaded on website of Ordnance Factory Kanpur on 27.02.2018.
6. Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri L.S. Kushwaha, holding brief of Shri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants argued in support of their case stating that as the applicants in the present OA have qualified the examination, they are being wrongfully denied the appointment inspite of being selected. They have reached so far in the selection and now they are being penalised for the misdeeds of other candidates. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as many as 60 out of 106 selected candidates were clear from the scrutiny CFSL, Bhopal and they are entitled to be appointed. He has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court various High Court and Tribunal through the written submission, which is given below :-
(i) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5321 of 2003.
(ii) Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
in Civil Appeal No.3411-3421 of 2005.
(iii) Union of India and Ors. Vs. Amit and Ors. in Writ-A No.632 of 2018.
(iv) Manoj Chakraborety Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.1717 of 2015. Page 4 of 8
OA No. 330/00938/2019
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the competent authority decided to scrap the examination process in order to ensure sanctity to the recruitment process.
9. The undisputed facts that emerge from the above are that the selection process for 100 posts of Labourer (Semi Skilled) Industrial Employees was started by the respondents on March, 2013. A list of 125 provisionally selected candidates was prepared after the written test, that was followed by PET and Medical test that were conducted on the same day i.e. on 17.06.2014. The applicants were called on 03.12.2014 for specimen signature and thumb impression for Verification. At that stage certain irregularities were observed as the signature, photo and thumb impression of some of the selected candidates obtained at the time of verification were not matching with the original documents filed by the applicants. After three years the entire selection process was found to have been vitiated as per the CFSL report was submitted as evidence. As per this report 60 candidates including the present applicants, out of 105, are stated to be genuine candidates, in other words the present applicants were not involved in any irregularities.
10. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Another, the Apex Court has held - where from out of selectees it was possible to weed out the beneficiaries or illegalities there was no justification to deny appointment to those selected candidates whose selection was no vitiated in any manner. On facts the decision cancelling the selection in their entirety was held to be irrational by High Court.
11. The facts of the present case need to be examined in light the judgment in Sachin Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service in SLP (C) Page 5 of 8 OA No. 330/00938/2019 No.5785 - 5786 of 2020 wherein law as has been evolved over the years on this subject is discussed :- (including all the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the applicant) "xxxxxx...........
33. five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a PART F systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of mal-practices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the Sachin Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Service ... on 3 March, 2021 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/109002668/ 20 constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process PART F of selection to posts subject to the norm of Page 6 of 8 OA No. 330/00938/2019 equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their wrong- doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process.
57. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. xxxxx..........."
12. From the facts it is clear that 60 selected candidates were clear from the any irregularities. The present applicants are part of these 60 selected candidates. Drawing strength from the judgment of Sachin Kumar (supra) wherein it is stated that in a case where it is possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adhered to the rules, in such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. Page 7 of 8
OA No. 330/00938/2019
13. In view of the above discussion, this OA succeeds. The impugned order dated 27.02.2018 is quashed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to appoint the applicants in pursuance of the selection process completed in pursuance of the advertisement published in 2013 (Annexure A-2), if the applicants are otherwise found suitable in accordance with rules, and if the vacancies are so available. The same shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No costs.
(Pratima K Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member(Judicial) Member(Administrative)
/Neelam/
Page 8 of 8