Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Amar Singh vs General Manager N C Rly on 22 March, 2025
RESERVED ON 20.03.2025.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH
ALLAHABAD
This is the 22nd day of March, 2025.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/01814/2015
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER (A)
1. Amar Singh, S/o Shri Shiv Chandra, R/o Village and Post
Shergadh, Pipari District Kaushambi.
2. Sanjay Kumar Saroj, S/o Shri Vikram Bahadur, R/o Mohan Ka
Pura, Gheenpur, Mauaima, District Allahabad.
3. Mukesh Chauhan, S/o Shri Vijay Singh, R/o Village Khurd, Post
Mindal via Chakrata, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
4. Dushyant Singh, S/o Shri Balvir Singh, R/o Village and Post
Dulhara, Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra.
5. Dileep Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Tavl Patel, R/o Village Tevariya
Khurd, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad.s
6. Durga Prasad, S/o Shri Ram Bahadur, R/o Village Dharav Gajpati,
Babhani Hethar, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad.
7. Sher Ali S/o Shri Abdul Salam, R/o Village Bijlipur, Post Lal
Gopalganj, District Allahabad.
..........Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. North Central Railway, Head Office Subedarganj, Allahabad
through its Personnel Officer.
3. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad
through its Chairman.
.................Respondents
Advocate for the Applicant: Shri Prashant Mishra
Shri Siddharth Rai
Shri S.K. Kushwaha
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
2
Advocate for the Respondents Shri Raj Pal Singh
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) to quash the impugned final result dated 15.12.2015 and further quash the impugned show cause notice dated 22.01.2016, impugned final orders dated 31.03.2016 and 09.05.2016 (attached only with the counter affidavit) and further quash the impugned show cause notice dated 22.1.2016 impugned final order dated 31.3.2016 & 9.5.20016 passed by Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad (Annexure A-6 to this application) for selection on Group-D post, in so far as it relates to applicants, by which the candidature of applicants has been rejected having remark as hand writing/thumb impression mismatch, pursuant to Advertisement dated 27.07.2013, being Advertisement No.01/2013, issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
(ii) to direct the respondents to declare the result of the applicants in respect of selection on Group-D Post afresh and also to issue appointment letters to applicants on Group-D post pursuant the to Advertisement dated 27.07.2013, being Advertisement No.01/2013, issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants applied for his candidature for the post of Group D in view of the advertisement made by the respondents in Employment Notice No. 01/2013 dated 27.07.2013. The applicants were issued admit card and on the basis of admit card, they appeared in the written examination conducted by the respondent no. 2 on 02.11.2014 to 30.11.2014. Having successfully qualified the written examination, the applicants were called for physical efficiency test. Applicants appeared in PET which was scheduled to be held from 10.3.2015 to 14.3.2015 wherein they have qualified. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 prepared a merit list of 2609 candidates and called them including the applicants along with their original documents for document verification and medical examination. Thereafter the applicants appeared at DSA Ground, Allahabad along with his original documents for verification and medical examination. Upon verification, respondent no. 2 passed an order whereby they were directed to appear MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 before Railway Hospital Allahabad for medical examination. The result of the applicants was declared at the official website of the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad wherein the status of the applicants has been given as rejected and remarks was given as hand writing/thumb impression mismatch. Thereafter Applicants had been served with the show cause notice after cancellation of the candidature of the applicants whereby candidature of the applicants was debarred for lifetime. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, applicants filed present OA.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that vide the impugned result dated 15.12.2015/16.12.2015, applicants' candidature was rejected due to mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression with the other relevant documents at the time of document verification. This was done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Employment Notification. They have further submitted that handwriting and thumb impression of the applicants was taken at every stage of the examination and during the verification of documents and other credentials of the candidates, some mismatches / discrepancies were traced and accordingly candidature of all those candidates including the applicants were rejected. In this regard, a show cause notice had been issued asking reply from the applicants. Thereafter impugned orders were passed debarring the applicants from all the RRCs/RRBs examination for appointment in railway for lifetime. Thus, it was prayed that the instant case of the applicant holds no merit and the original application is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants in which the applicants have reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4
5. We have heard Shri S.K. Kushwaha learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the case of the applicants is similar to the applicant of OA No. 34 of 2016 (Rama Shankar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others) decided by this Bench on 07.12.2023, OA No. 1349/2016 (Ranjeet Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) decided by this Bench on 01.08.2018, OA No. 1113/2016 (Dharamjeet Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) decided by this Bench on 01.09.2016 and OA No. 1790/2015 (Kanishka Vs. Union of India and others) decided by this Bench on 09.08.2018. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Vijay Pal and 22 others Vs. Union of India and 3 others in Writ 'A' No. 21096 of 2018 decided on 16.5.2023. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 24965/2023 (Union of India and others Vs. Vijay Pal & others) decided on 09.12.2024 and SLP was dismissed. He has further submitted that the applicants will be satisfied if similar order is given in the instant OA because applicants had also applied against the same advertised vacancy and they were successful in all the stages of examination. Vide interim order dated 08.01.2016, 07 posts were kept reserved in this matter.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim of the applicants and stated that during the document verification, the handwriting/thumb impression of the applicant did not match with the handwriting/thumb impression obtained during the written and PET examination. Thus no illegality can be seen in the impugned orders
8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the entire records.
9. We have perused the impugned orders wherein it has been mentioned that handwriting/thumb impression of the applicants during document verification did not match with the handwriting/thumb MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 impression obtained during written and PET examination and the Authority concerned presumed that someone else had appeared in the Written and PET examinations impersonating the applicants.
10. In the case of Vijay Pal (supra), O.A. filed before this Tribunal was dismissed. Applicants of the OA challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court vide aforesaid writ. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while deciding the matter has held as under:-
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral citation No. 2023; AHC 106025-DB AFR Reserved Case No. Writ A No. 21096 of 2018 Petitioner; Vijay Pal and 3 others Respondents: Union of India and 3 others Counsel for the petitioner : Shyamal Narain, Ravi Prakash Bhatt.
Counsel for respondents: Vivek Kumar Rai, Manish Pandey, Rajnish Kumar Rai Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Suneet Kumar. J.
1. Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, assisted by Shri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Petitioner/original applicants, herein, are challenging the judgment and order dated 1 May 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short 'Tribunal'), whereby, their candidature for appointment on Group-D post has been rejected.
3. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad (for short 'RRC'), invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to Group-D posts, i.e., Khalasi, Helper, Trackman, Peon, Parcel Porter, Safaiwala, etc. under North Central Railway, vide advertisement No. 01/2013, dated 27 July, 2013.
4. Petitioners appeared for the written test and were declared successful. The select list was published on the official website of R.R.C. on 15 December 2015. Thereafter, petitioners appeared for the Physical Examination Test (for short 'P.E.T'.), held between 10 March 2015 to 14 March 2015, finally, 2609 candidates, including the petitioners came to be declared successful in the P.E.T. Thereafter, all the candidates, including, petitioners were called for verification of the documents and medical examination. The select list published on the website on 15 December MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 2015, was accompanied by a note running in fourteen paragraphs. The paragraph relevant for the purposes of this case is extracted:
"During various stages of scrutiny and Document Verification 339 candidates found indulged in impersonation. It is roved following extant procedure that these candidates did not appeared inn the written examination but some one else appeared in place of these candidates or handwriting/thumb impression of these candidates did not match in various documents. Hence apart from cancellation of candidature of the 339 candidates they are being debarred from all Railways examination through out Indian Railways as well as criminal case may also be registered against them on case to case basis."
5. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected with the remarks 'handwriting/thumb impression mismatch'.
6. Aggrieved, petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing original application, being O.A. No. 1789 of 2015, Vijay Pal and others versus Union of India and others, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 1 May 2018.
7. During pendency of the original application, an interim order dated 31 December 2015, was granted by the Tribunal directing the respondents to keep 23 Group-D posts vacant. The operative portion of the order is extracted:
"Having heard learned counsel for both sides, it appears that the grounds for rejection are stigmatic and therefore some opportunity ought to have been given to the applicants before rejecting their candidature by the respondents. Therefore, prima facie, a case for interim protection is made out. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep 23 posts vacant till the next date.
If the facts are otherwise, the respondents are at liberty to file stay vacation application."
8. During pendency of the original application, petitioners came to be issued memorandum dated 23 January 2016, stating therein, that though the candidature of the petitioners was already cancelled, however, petitioners were called upon by the respondents to show cause as to why they may not be debarred from all future R.R.C./R.R.B. examinations, further, why criminal case may not be instituted against them for indulging in malpractice to procure Government job by fraud and misrepresentation.
9. The notice alleged that the petitioners had resorted to impersonation, further, it was alleged that there was mismatch in the handwriting, and/or, thumb impression of the candidates. In other words, allegation against the petitioners was that they have resorted, by securing the services of someone else, in the written test on their behalf. The allegation levelled in the two memorandums of the same date is extracted:
"I. As confirmed by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hand writing on the Application Form and that on answer sheet (OMR)/verification sheets are of different person (s). It has been established that the candidate did not appear himself in the written examination or PET examination and rather somebody else appeared in the same on his behalf, which is a case of impersonation, a malpractice and an offence.
II. As you are aware bio-metrics attendance were obtained during each phase of examination. It is to bring into your notice that your thumb impression during document verification did not match with written and PET examination. It means someone else had appeared in written and PET examination impersonating your candidature."
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7
10. Petitioners filed their objections to the show cause notice/memorandum denying the allegations of impersonation or mismatch in handwriting, and/or, thumb impression. The respondent-authority vide order dated 31 March 2016, rejected the objection stating that the reply submitted by the petitioners were not found satisfactory. Consequently, petitioners were debarred from taking future R.R.B./R.R.C. examinations for life.
11. Aggrieved, petitioners through an amendment application challenged the memorandum dated 22 January 2016 and the debarment order dated 31 March 2016.
12. The learned Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings and hearing the counsels for the respective parties, by the impugned order, partly allowed the original application of the petitioners. The impugned orders to the extent debarring the petitioners from future R.R.B/R.R.C. examinations for life was set aside. The decision of the respondents, however, cancelling the candidature of the petitioners was not interfered with.
13. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus:
"24. In the circumstances, following the decision taken in the case of Santosh Kumar Tiwari (supra) to this case, we also come to the conclusion that from the facts and circumstances of the case based on the materials on record and as discussed in para 22, the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants, since the allegation comprised of only mismatch of thumb impression or handwriting, without any mismatch of the signature of the applicants. In case of impersonation the mismatch in signature would have been detected also. The mismatch of signature is not reported or detected for any of the applicants in this case. However, there is violation of the instructions of the examination as per the advertisement No. 1/2023, for which there is mismatch of handwriting or mismatch of thumb impression for the applicants and these mismatches have not been explained satisfactorily as the explanation in one applicant's explanation/reply at Annexure A-10 of the OA reveals. In fact, there are such violations as mentioned in the Suppl. Affidavit filed by the applicants. Further, no specific reason has been indicated in the show cause notice or impugned order in support of the allegation of impersonation against any of the applicants. Hence, taking into accounts the facts of the case, we consider the cancellation of the candidature of the applicants for the advertisement No. 1/2013 to be just and proper. But the decision of the respondents to debar some of the applicants for all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is not at all justified based on the materials on record. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2016, debarring the applicants from all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is set aside and quashed. However, we uphold the decision/orders of the respondent No. 2 to cancel the candidature of the applicants for the examination pertaining to the advertisement No. 1/2013. Respondent No. 2 is directed to modify the penal action against the applicants accordingly. The interim orders in the case to keep 23 posts vacant in OA No. 1789/2015 and one post vacant in OA No. 73/2016 are vacated and if some of the applicants have appeared in subsequent examinations provisionally by virtue of the interim orders, their candidature shall be considered by the respondent No. 2 as per the rules applicable for the said examination in view of the quashing of the punishment of debarment from all examinations of RRCs/RRBs as per this order.
25. For the OA No. 73/2016, the allegation against the applicant is for mismatch of handwriting as verified by the GEQD like the case of the applicant No. 1 in the OA No. 1789/2015. The reply furnished to the show cause notice and enclosed at Annexure SA-2 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed b the applicant, does not give any convincing explanation for mismatch of handwriting. Hence, the finding as at para 24 will also be applicable for the OA No. 73/2016.
26. Before we part with the case, we notice that there appears to be no Rule or Regulation laying down the procedure to be followed by the RRC/RRB, MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 in situations where there are discrepancies for a candidate like mismatch of handwriting or thumb impression or signature etc. or allegation of impersonation in the examination, as no such Rule/Regulation has been produced before us in this case. The respondents may consider to put in place an appropriate Rule/Regulation to deal with such situations in a just and fair manner as per the provision of law."
14. The coordinate Bench of this Court, on filing of the writ petition by the petitioners, passed an interim order dated 1 October 2018, staying the impugned order of the Tribunal until further orders and directed the respondents to keep 23 posts vacant and that would abide by the out come of the writ petition. The operative portion of the interim order is extracted:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, until further orders, the impugned order date 01.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1789/2015 shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to keep 23 posts vacant."
15. Learned counsel for the respondents, on specific query, admits that the respondent-Railways have not filed writ petition challenging the order of the learned Tribunal, insofar as, the impugned order recorded a categorical finding with regard to impersonation that '... the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants, since the allegation comprised of only mismatch of thumb impression or handwriting without any mismatch of the signature of the applicants. In case of impersonation, the mismatch in signature would have been detected also. The mismatch of signature is not reported or detected for any of the applicants in this case...'
16. In the aforenoted backdrop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that insofar as the allegation of impersonation levelled against the petitioners was held unworthy of belief by the learned Tribunal, rather, the allegation of impersonation was specifically rejected. The finding to that effect has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents.
17. It is, therefore, urged that after returning a categorical finding with regard to impersonation being unbelievable, Tribunal committed an error in upholding the decision of the respondents to cancel the candidature of the petitioners at the examination. In other words, it is submitted that the petitioners had appeared for the examination and are entitled to appointment. In the circumstances, the question of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression would not arise.
18. It is further submitted that the categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal that '... the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants...' is contradictory for the reason that mismatch of handwriting, or, thumb impression, is possible in the event of impersonation.
19. It is further urged that it can safely be said that all the petitioners stand totally exonerated of the main charge of impersonation which was the substance and basis of the show cause notice/memorandum issued to them. It is further submitted that the candidature of the petitioners came to be cancelled prior to the issue of show cause notice/memorandum, accordingly, there is an element of pre-determination of mind of the respondent-Railways against the petitioners. The memorandum was confined to debarment from all future examinations for resorting to impersonation.
20. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is not being disputed that the petitioners herein were not confronted with the expert opinion or of the opinion of the Government Examiner for Questionable Documents MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 (GEQD) . It is admitted that on the allegations based on the opinion of the expert, memorandum was served upon the petitioners to show cause with regard to their debarment and with not regarding the cancellation of their candidature in the examination. In other words, insofar as, cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners, was final as the memorandum was confined with their future debarment in RRB/RRC examinations. It is further stated that after considering the reply of the petitioners, the candidates came to be debarred. The candidature of the petitioners was cancelled due to the acts of irregularities/omissions noted in the impugned order. It is, however, not denied that material relied upon in non-suiting the petitioners, i.e., the expert opinion was not supplied to the petitioners, nor, filed before this Court or the Tribunal. In other words, the orders of cancellation of candidature came to be passed behind the back of the petitioners while cancelling their candidature, thereafter, upon notice, petitioners were debarred for all future RRB examinations.
21. It is not the case of the respondent-Railways that the show cause notice/memorandum was supported by any material, including, the opinion of the handwriting expert. Opinion of handwriting expert was not supplied in support of the memorandum to justify the allegation of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on the application form or on the subsequent papers pertaining to Written Examination/P.E.T. undertaken by the petitioners. The entire exercise was undertaken by the Railways behind the back of the petitioners.
22. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified on the available materials on record to hold petitioners guilty of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on various documents.
23. In Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others1, this Court observed that handwriting expert opinion is at best an opinion, which is not conclusive proof of mismatch of handwriting or impersonation. Expert opinion has been considered to be of very weak nature, which requires corroboration from other material facts pertaining to the allegation.
24. This Court held as follows:
"Evidence of an expert is only an opinion. Expert evidence is only a piece of evidence and external evidence. It has to be considered along with other pieces of evidence. Which would be the main evidence and with is the corroborative one depends upon the facts of each case. An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court a scientific opinion which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a Judge. This kind of testimony, however, has been considered to be of very weak nature and expert is usually required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions. It is quite often surprising to see with what facility, and to what extent, their views would be made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them."
25. The decision of the respondent is based on the expert opinion alone to establish guilt of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression without affording opportunity or confronting the petitioners with the material/opinion. Had it been so, the petitioners in their defence could also have obtained an opinion of the expert to confront the Railways. The impugned order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners could not have been sustained on the opinion of handwriting expert.
26. In Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. Union of India and others2, this Court in similar facts set aside the cancellation of the candidature and their debarment for three years from appearing in any examination of the Commission on the strength of an expert opinion.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 "23. In the facts of the present case, despite allegation made in the notice dated 5.8.2015 about thumb impression, signatures and handwriting having not tallied, the respondents have confined their conclusion to the opinion of the handwriting expert. Such opinion cannot be construed as being conclusive.
24. In the present case not only the petitioners have been denied appointment but they are also debarred from appearing in any examination conducted by the Commission for three years. Such order of Commission is clearly stigmatic in nature. The order under challenge carries civil consequences also. Such order cannot be sustained merely on the strength of handwriting report, nature of which remains that of an opinion, and cannot be construed as conclusive.
25. The report of CFSL based upon handwriting expert's opinion, moreover, has not been furnished to the petitioners. Petitioners consequently had no opportunity to controvert it."
27. The decision rendered in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), was carried intra court appeal in Union of India and others vs. Ran Vijay Singh and others3, Division Bench observed as follows:
"At this juncture, we would also like to state that it is not the case of the appellant-respondents that the process of selection suffers from mass- irregularity, but of unfair practices adopted by certain individuals. Looking to this background also, we are of the considered opinion that while cancelling examination of the respondent-petitioners and further debarring him for three consecutive examinations the appellant should have supplied a copy of the opinion given by the handwriting expert. Non- supply of that is in violation of principles of natural justice."
28. The aforenoted authorities came to be followed by the Division Bench in Bhupendra Singh vs. Union of India and anothers4, the relevant part of the order is extracted:
"In both Ran Vijay Singh and Tulasi Ram Prajapati, the learned Judge found that the candidature of the petitioners could not have been unilaterally annulled without granting them an opportunity to rebut the findings recorded by the expert. These principles are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the order is not stigmatic and there is no violation of Article 311 of the Constitution do not merit consideration since principles of natural justice would clearly apply in all situations where a person is visited with serious civil consequences. Once the name of the petitioner stood included in the select list, his removal from the same on the allegation of impersonation must necessarily have been preceded by the issuance of a notice or at least an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish that the adverse material which was relied upon by the respondents was not liable to be accepted. It is well settled that the opinion of an expert is not conclusive and remains just that, namely, an opinion."
29. The respondents in the given facts of the case at hand were expected to confront the petitioners with the material relied upon against them, particularly, when the petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any further examination conducted by the RRB/RRC and their candidature was cancelled for the examination on mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression.
30. The opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record. The learned Tribunal has discarded the theory of impersonation setup by the respondent- Railways, then in that event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioners becomes unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that petitioners have not appeared in the examination or have not filled the application form in their handwriting.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11
31. The respondent-Railways, in their counter affidavit, have not denied that at all stages of the examination, i.e., Written Test and P.E.T., thumb impression and signatures of the candidates was taken and the entire process was video-graphed. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that though the petitioners had appeared for the examination, yet at the same time, there was mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression.
32. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners, herein, had not carried the relevant documents, including, identity card to the examination centre or had not participated in the P.E.T./Medical Examination.
33. In the circumstances, it cannot be said in absence of any other material available with the Railways, that it is a case of mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression. The inference of the Railways is based on an opinion without being supported by any other material, i.e., the petitioners had not appeared at different stages of the selection process.
34. In service jurisprudence, though Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but on the principle of preponderance of probability, based on some material evidence against the petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by the Railways, that there was large scale irregularities in the examination process, only few candidates have been picked-up and their selections cancelled merely on an opinion obtained behind the back of the petitioners without confronting the petitioners with the incriminating material.
35. The respondent's action otherwise is not inconformity with the principles of natural justice, accordingly, the impugned order dated 1 May 2018, being stigmatic cannot be sustained.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on Group-D post forthwith.
37. It is clarified that no other ground or point was pressed by the counsels for the respective parties.
38. No cost.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023".
11. It is noteworthy to mention here that SLP (C) No. 24965/2023 filed against the decision of Hon'ble High Court passed in aforesaid Vijay Pal (supra) case has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dated 09.12.2024, thus, the order of the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality.
12. Since similar issue raised by the candidates of the same recruitment was allowed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal (supra) case, thus, we are of the view that applicants are also entitled for the same relief as has been allowed in Vijay Pal (supra) case. Ratio laid down in Vijay Pal (supra) case is squarely applicable to the facts of MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12 present case also. Thus, OA is liable to be allowed in terms of judgment passed in Vijay Pal (supra) case.
13. Accordingly, the instant OA is allowed and impugned orders dated 31.3.2016, show cause notice dated 22.01.2016, final orders dated 09.05.2016 in respect of all the applicants are hereby quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to appoint the applicants on Group 'D' post within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash-VII)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA