Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2026
1
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025,
95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 68/2025,
O.A. No. 70/2025,
O.A. No. 95/2025,
O.A. No. 96/2025 and
O.A. No. 97/2025
Reserved on: 12.12.2025.
Pronounced on: 08.01.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
O.A. No. 68/2025
Jitten Kumar
S/o Sh. Veer Singh
R/o H. No. 342, Harijan Basti,
Village-Bajitpur, Thakran,
Delhi
(Aged about years)
(Candidate to the posts in Pay Band 5200-20200
With G.P. 1800/- in Railways) ...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Ms. Meenu Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through General Manager, Northern
Railways Headquarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. Chairperson
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024
3. Chief Personnel Officer
Northern Railways Headquarter Office
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
4. Assistant Personal Officer
Railway Recruitment Cell Northern Railway
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024 ... Respondents
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2026.01.12
17:20:00+05'30'
2
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025,
95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025
(By Advocates: Mr. Dhananjai Rana with Mr. Vikas, Dep. Rep.)
O.A. No. 70/2025
Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahender Kumar
R/o Lutana, Sadasukh
Gulpura, Churu,
Rajasthan 331023
(Aged about years)
(Candidate to the posts in Pay Band 5200-20200
with G.P. 1800/- in Railways) ...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Ms. Meenu Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through General Manager, Northern
Railways Headquarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. Chairperson
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024
3. Chief Personnel Officer
Northern Railways Headquarter Office
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
4. Assistant Personal Officer
Railway Recruitment Cell Northern Railway
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024 ... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Dhananjai Rana with Mr. Vikas, Dep. Rep.)
O.A. No. 95/2025
Sanjay
S/o Sh. Krishanlal
R/o H. No. 522/7,
Lalheri Road Ganaur
Distt. Sonipat-131101
(Aged about years)
(Candidate to the posts in Pay Band 5200-20200
3
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025,
95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025
With G.P. 1800/- in Railways) ...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Ms. Meenu Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through General Manager, Northern
Railways Headquarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. Chairperson
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024
3. Chief Personnel Officer
Northern Railways Headquarter Office
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
4. Assistant Personal Officer
Railway Recruitment Cell Northern Railway
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024 ... Respondents
(By Advocates: Proxy (name not given) for Mr. Sushil Raja)
O.A. No. 96/2025
Suryakant
S/o Sh. Sunil Dutt
R/o Village- Dhaulagarh,
Noorpur Dehat, Noorpur, Bijnor
Uttar Pradesh-246734
(Aged about years)
(Candidate to the posts in Pay Band 5200-20200
With G.P. 1800/- in Railways) ...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Ms. Meenu Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through General Manager, Northern
Railways Headquarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. Chairperson
Railway Recruitment Cell,
4
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025,
95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024
3. Chief Personnel Officer
Northern Railways Headquarter Office
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
4. Assistant Personal Officer
Railway Recruitment Cell Northern Railway
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024 ... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Awanish Kumar)
O.A. No. 97/2025
Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ganga Ram
R/o Azad Colony, Line Paar,
nagina, Bijnor,
Uttar Pradesh-246762
(Aged about years)
(Candidate to the posts in Pay Band 5200-20200
With G.P. 1800/- in Railways) ...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Ms. Meenu Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through General Manager, Northern
Railways Headquarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. Chairperson
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024
3. Chief Personnel Officer
Northern Railways Headquarter Office
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
4. Assistant Personal Officer
Railway Recruitment Cell Northern Railway
Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024 ... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Ashok Kumar with Mr. Vikas, Dep. Rep.)
5
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025,
95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J): -
Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from O.A. No. 68/2025 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) call for the records of the case and
(b) quash and set aside impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure A/1) along with show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure A/2) and;
(c) direct the respondents to forthwith appoint the applicant to the post(s) in pay band 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/-
(pre-revised) pursuant to applicant's selection towards the advertisement issued in the year 2014
(d) accord all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits
(e) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(f) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants."
3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
3.1. In response to employment notification (Annexure-A/3) issued by RRC, NR in the year 2014 to fill up various posts in Pay 6 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 Band Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- the applicant (SC candidate) being fully eligible, duly applied for the same and participated in the recruitment process on the allotted Roll No. 50250644 and Control No. 13410226. He himself appeared in the written examination in 2014. However, his result was withheld and he was constrained to file O.A. No. 1000/2015 and the said O.A. was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.03.2015 (Annexure-A/4), at the admission stage, by issuing directions to disclose his marks and if he has secured more marks than the last selected candidate, he shall be allowed to participate in the physical examination scheduled from 23.03.2015 to 25.03.2015. 3.2 Later, Hon'ble Delhi High Court issued order dated 28.07.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 4945/2015 (Annexure-A/5) requiring preservation of the answer sheets and answer keys. Pursuant thereto, RRC issued order dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure- A/6) where operative para reads as follows:-
"In compliance to the above orders, which have been received in this office on 06.08.15, undersigned has gone through the case and notes as under:
1. You were a candidate in the above referred examination held in the month of November 2014 with Control No. 16410226 and Roll No. 50250644.
2. The result of the above examination was declared on 20.02.2015 under three categories i.e. "Shortlisted for PET', "Not Shortlisted for PET", and "Result Withheld" candidates.
3. It is advised that marks of the candidates are disclosed only after the process of Physical Efficiency Test (PET) is over. Cut off marks for the "shortlisted" candidates for/after PET already been displayed on the RRC website and now that PET event has 7 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 culminated and, Respondent are now not precluded from disclosing the marks of "Not Shortlisted" candidates for PET who are otherwise not grouped by computer software/system in the "Rejected" category for mismatch of Control No./Roll No. or who have circumvented the Employment Notification conditions etc.
4. Your result was shown as "Withheld" candidate on the ground of using unfair means during the examination. Your case along with other similarly placed candidates was further processed and investigated by a apex agency of Govt. of India having expertise in the field as also by using high technological methods. Based on the reports of Investigation, it has been proved that you have used unfair means in the examination and accordingly your candidature stands rejected/cancelled by competent authority i.e. Chairman RRC. Information of the same also available on RRC website in detail.
5. Accordingly you were not shortlisted for further process of selection. However now in compliance to Tribunal's orders, it is informed that you have scored 90.24 marks but these marks in no way, give you any right of further consideration for appointment in Railway as you are found indulged in the malpractices/used unfair means during examination and your candidature itself already stands rejected/cancelled for the reason given above.
This is for your information in compliance to above subjected orders, which stands complied with."
3.3 Challenging the aforesaid orders/action, the applicant filed O.A. No. 3915/2015 which was disposed off by this Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-A/7). The operative para of the said order is reproduced here for the sake of convenience, as follows:-
"5. We note that the impugned order does not contain any specifics. It does not give detail regarding the unfair means used by applicants. Unless the details are provided applicants cannot meet the allegation. Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 10621/2018 has directed respondents to issue a SCN in identical circumstances. Following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the OA is disposed of in similar terms. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are granted liberty to issue a show cause notice to the applicants, within four weeks, along with all supporting documents in support of the claim that the applicants have resorted to unfair means during the exam doted 20.02.2015. The applicants will file reply to the show cause notice within four weeks' thereafter and the 8 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 respondents shall decide the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon. In case, the reply furnished by the applicants to the show cause notice is found satisfactory and the respondents decide to offer an appointment to the applicants, the same shall be done without any benefits of retrospective appointment. Needless to say if the applicants are still aggrieved, they may take steps as per law.
6. The OA stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs."
3.4 In purported compliance thereto, the respondents have issued show cause notice dated 16.10.2024. (Annexure- A/2) 3.5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the act of the respondents is both factually perverse and legally unsustainable on the following grounds:--
(i) Despite order of this Tribunal dated 02.08.2024 in O.A. 3915/2015, the respondents have not provided any evidence to show that the applicant adopted unfair means as alleged against him. No supporting document, too, has been provided. In fact, the applicant did not use any unfair means in the selection process.
That is why there is no evidence, to that effect. The respondents allegations are imaginary, unfounded and unsubstantiated.
(ii) As per orders of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3915/2015, show cause notice if issued, could be issued giving details regarding the unfair means along with supporting documents. No details are forthcoming and no supporting document has been annexed with the SCN. This is so, because the allegation itself is false and ill- 9 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 founded and there is no document to support the same. The alleged report is worthless, and baseless, what to say that it is 'highly confidential' as it is based on assumptions/presumptions/imagination and has no substantive value.
(iii) There is no detail of alleged malpractice. RRC is hopping in the dark for a black cat which is not there and i.e. the reason that the SCN dated 16.10.2024 is vague, non-specific and does not contain any material. The SCN is merely an empty formality. There is no explicit mention of material, which was sought to be utilized by the authority concerned in taking the proposed action. In fact, there does not exist any such material.
(iv) The applicant made appropriate submissions in his reply dated 30.10.2024 and drew attention of respondents to similar action taken by Staff Selection Commission towards its various examinations including CGLE-2012. All such similar show cause notices (around more than 500) were set aside by this Tribunal. One such order is order dated 30.07.2014 in O.A. No. 930/2014 titled Sudesh Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 9055/2014 rejected SSC's challenge to aforesaid judgment. Later, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 2836-2838/2017 vide order dated 19.07.2017 rejected the SSC's challenge.
(v) Similar orders have been passed in identical situation, following the judgment in Sudesh case in WP (C) No. 10518/2018 (Amit Chikara vs. UoI) by Hon'ble Delhi High Court where similar action of Food Corporation of India was set aside. The aforesaid orders were also annexed with applicant's reply to SCN.
(vi) However, without consideration applicant's reply and the judicial precedents on the subject, respondents have issued impugned unnumbered and undated order communicated vide letter dated 22.11.2024, cancelling the candidature of the applicant.
(vii) The aforesaid order is an unreasoned and cryptic order in as much as the detailed reply of the applicant has not been considered. The precedent case law too has been ignored and a so called 'report' (statistical and analysis) has been relied upon as evidence which infact is no evidence of malpractice.
(viii) The applicant has obtained 90.24 marks as against SC cut- off of 73.33 marks.
3.6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order/judgment dated 31.10.2025 of this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 3221/2024 & 3224/2024 in the matter of Chandrakant Tyagi 11 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Jitender Vs. Union of India & Ors. respectively.
3.7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present case is identical to order/judgment dated 31.10.2025 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3221/2024 in the matter of Chandrakant Tyagi Vs. Union of India & Ors. Relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"8.6 In the present case, there are no specific allegations against the against the applicant(s) in the show-cause notice to conclude definitively that they were involved in malpractice. The rejection of the representations of the applicant(s) was done cryptically; the speaking order merely notes that "his explanation did not satisfactorily address the anomalies highlighted in the statistical report and analysis." The reasons assigned are conjectural, based solely on suspicion. Moreover, the statistical report has not been placed on record or made available for perusal. When a candidate's career is at stake, courts must seek corroboration through reliable direct or circumstantial evidence to determine whether large-scale malpractices or unfair means were employed.
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 In view of the foregoing analysis, it is observed that the decision rendered in Satwant Singh (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned speaking orders dated 09.07.2024 in both the O.A.s are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to declare the results of the applicants and issue offers of appointment to them in accordance with merit, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility terms and conditions in their respective categories.
9.2. Needless to mention, the applicants shall not be entitled to any benefits of retrospective appointment as already observed in the judgment dated 19.01.2024.
9.3. The O.A.s are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 9.4 Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs." 12
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted as under:
4.1. In pursuance to Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt./2013 dated 30.12.2013 published in Employment News dated 11-17 January 2014, a recruitment process to fill up 5679 vacancies in Group-D in pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 +GP Rs.
1800/- for various divisions Workshops Units as initiated. In the said notification detailed information for the candidates was given. The Notification clearly stipulated how to apply, general conditions and invalid applications etc. General condition of the notification also stipulated the mere selection and empanelment does not confer any right of appointment to the candidate. Admission of the candidate at all stage of recruitment will be purely provisionally subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions it was clearly stipulated that calling of candidates for written examination/document verification does not automatically confer any right upon candidate for his Medical Examination or his appointment on any post of Northern Railway. It was also informed to all concerned that candidates are advised to remain in touch with RRC website for various information. 4.2. The said notification under Para 11 also stated that misconduct on the part of the candidates at any part of the 13 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 recruitment process is strictly prohibited and indulgence in the above practices will result in the rejection of the candidature at any time. It was also stated that action as deemed fit necessary including criminal action will be taken by the RRC against candidates found guilty of submitting fabricated dose, tempered certificates and using unfair means during his written examination or PET etc. will be covered in the misconduct. 4.3. The applicant Sh. Jitten Kumar appeared in the said selection vide Roll no.- 50250644 and Control No. 13410226. The result of the said examination was declared on 20.02.2015 in such a way that result of individual candidate can be seen in the form of his status i.e. „shortlisted‟, not Shortlisted" and "withheld" for further state/process of selection after entering his Roll Number and Control Number in the given space on the RRC website. This method has been adopted to protect the result file of all shortlisted candidates from unauthorized access as a safety measures. Sh. Jitten Kumar result status was shown as "withheld" for next stage of recruitment process as result of some candidates including him, was withheld for internal enquiries. To find out the copying or scoring through fraudulent activities by using various means like blue tooth, microphone and high fidelity scanner and clandestine devises, some scientific test checks were conducted on 14 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 the answering pattern on such candidates whose result was withheld.
4.4. These results in the form of algorithm system of checking were further sent to the Apex Institution of Govt. of India, for statistical analysis and conclusion. The said institute of Govt. of India has confirmed the use of unfair means. To maintain the fairness, integrity and trust of the examination, competent authority i.e. Chairman/RRC decided to cancel the candidature of such candidates, including the candidature of the applicant, for the said examination with decision to debar all of them including the applicant from appearing Railway Examinations and taking a lenient view towards such candidates decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. This position was uploaded on RRC website, which is the main source of communication with the candidates as notified in the Employment Notification, for the information of all concerned. Sh. Jitten & Ors. filed a O.A. No. -1000/2015 which is disposed off at admission stage itself on 17.06.2015 by passing the following order- "in view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to disclose the marks secured by the last selected candidate, they shall be allowed to participate in the physical examination scheduled to be 15 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 held on 23.03.2015 to 25.03.2015. The respondent shall also inform them the marks obtained by them in the written examination within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
4.5. Since factual position could not be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and to place the threadbare facts, pertaining to your case, R.A. No. 106/2015 was filed by the administration and the Central has disposed of the same on 15.07.2015 with reference to common order in R.A. No. 111/2015 in O.A. No. 1199/15, with following direction:-" as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, these Review application are disposed of by this common order directing the Review applicant to disclose the marks obtained by each of the applicant and the reasons for rejection for their candidature and communicate them by individual letters within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4.6. In compliance to the above order, which have been received in this office on 06.08.2015 RRC disclose the marks and the reason of cancellation of candidature by send a letter no. 220-E/Open mkt./RRC/2013 dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure-A/1) to the applicant Sh. Jitten Kumar. Sh. Jitten Kumar approached the Tribunal by filing an O.A. no. -3915/2015 titled Dinesh Kumar 16 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. He was also one of the applicant in this O.A. Aforesaid O.A no. 3915/2015 was disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2024 with following direction:- "Respondent are granted liberty to show cause notice to the applicants, within four weeks, along with all supporting documents in support of the claim that the applicants have resorted to unfair means during the exam dated 20.02.2015. The applicants will reply to the show cause notice within four weeks‟ thereafter and the respondents shall decide the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon. In case the reply furnished by the applicants to the show cause notice is found satisfactory and the respondents decide to offer an appointment to the applicants, the same shall be done without any benefits of retrospective appointment. 4.7. In compliance with the Court directive, a show cause notice was issued to Sh. Jitten kumar on 16.10.2024 (Annexure-A/2), granting him access to the confidential documents used by the RRC to justify the cancellation of his candidature. Sh. Jitten Kumar reviewed these documents on 24.10.2024 and submitted his response/representation within the given timeframe. However, his explanation did not satisfactorily address the anomalies highlighted in the statistical report. After a thorough 17 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 evaluation of the evidence and representation/response of applicant Sh. Jitten Kumar, it is determined that the decision to cancel his candidature was supported by credible evidence of using unfair means during the examination. The statistical report and analysis provided strong grounds for this conclusion, which Jitten Kumar response failed to adequately refute. Competent authority issued a speaking order on dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-A/3) and the same was delivered to candidate. Therefore, in adherence to the principles of natural justice and in compliance with the Tribunal‟s order, after providing the candidate with a fair opportunity to explain his stance, the cancellation of Sh. Jitten kumar candidature is upheld. This decision is based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence and the opportunity afforded to Jitten Kumar to present his case 4.8. The counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs. Sudesh (Writ petition (c) No. 9055/2014). But, however, on closer scrutiny it is seen that the candidates involved in the above said case of Sudesh, seen held qualified in the examination and were subjected to interview and were subsequently they were finally declared selected. Subsequently, their results were withheld 18 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 as such SCN was issued canceling the candidature. Whereas, in the present cases, the entire selection process was not over, their results were withheld immediately, after the written examination and they were not even called for Physical Endurance Test (PET). As such the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High court in the above said case of Sudesh cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 4.9. Recruitment examinations for the Group D posts where minimum educational qualification has been prescribed as only 10th pass without having any technical education attracts large number of application almost to the tune of 100-150 times of vacancies. Because of this difference vacancies and number of aspirants, scope arises for mafia to encase the scarcity and mint money by trapping innocent candidates in their trap. There is no dearth of IT equipment's to induce these candidates in mass copying with promise to get employment by wrong methods. It is sincere endeavor of the Railways to keep the recruitment process just, fair and impartial. This menace, if not tackled while it is at nascent stage, will go out of proportion as anyone got selected by using unfair means would have multiplier effect on the recruitment process. From lakhs of candidates who took examination in different spells, the miscreants have been 19 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 picked up by using scientific methods taking help of IT and apex institute of the Govt. of India.
4.10. The respondents submitted that during the written examination candidate were given 100 questions with four proposed answers, where only one proposed choice was correct. To indicate the correct answer candidates had to darken a bubble of right choice. Therefore, possibility of some bunch of candidates striking the same answer for same question, including right/wrong/unattempt sitting in different classroom/centers seems to be unacceptable unless it is guided by use of common source of unfair means. Respondents have forbidden all the aspirants in Employment Notice that any candidate caught using unfair means would be dealt with severely an action as deemed fit, including criminal action, would be taken by RRC. Hence, the Respondents were not precluded from taking action against such miscreants. Had the action taken not been restored to, the applicant and other such candidates would have occupied the position of genuine, honest and laborious candidates and this would have disturbed the equilibrium. Thus action of Respondents has been justifiable and cannot be termed as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Hence Respondents are not further required to prove the applicant's guilt to hilt. When the applicant had not desisted from using unfair means even, 20 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 after being forbidden through employment notice, the applicant does not deserve any sympathetic consideration or they do not deserve any leniency form the Tribunal as it would entice other such candidates to indulge in unnecessary litigation. 4.11. To support these contentions the respondents relied upon the following case laws:
a) O.A. No. 1837/2016 (CAT /PB/NDLS) in the matter of Satwant Singh Vs UOI & Ors.
b) Varun Bhardwaj Vs State bank of India & Ors. (LPA 155/2013) (Delhi High Court)
c) Prakash Chand Meena Vs UOI & Ors. (O.A. No. 416/2015) with O.A. No. 2064/2015 (Amit Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.)
d) Shyani Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. (O.A. No. 3447/2015
e) O.A. No. 291/00359/2015 of CAT Jaipur Bench 4.12. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on order/judgment dated 24.11.2015 in LPA 155/2013 of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Varun Bhardwaj Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"21. Again, the need to be aware that natural justice is not a stereotyped principle, of unbending universal application was emphasized in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256, where the Court observed that natural justice is 21 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 not an unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a "judicial cure-all". The Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact. Nor can they fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity. If the totality of circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity, the Court will decline to be "punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures" (Ref Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors. 2015 (8) SCC
519). As a result, the appellant's submissions with regard to SBI's failure to adhere to principles of natural justice have to fail.
22. The appellant had relied on Palak Modi (supra). The following observations in that judgment are relevant:
"The use of unfair means in the evaluation test/confirmation test held by the Bank certainly constitutes a misconduct. The Bank itself had treated such an act to be a misconduct (paragraph 10 of advertisement dated 1.7.2008). It is not in dispute that the services of the private respondents were not terminated on the ground that there was any deficiency or shortcoming in their work or performance during probation or that they had failed to satisfactorily complete the training or had failed to secure the qualifying marks in the test held on 27.2.2011. As a matter of fact, the note prepared by the Deputy General Manager, which was approved by the General Manager makes it crystal clear that the decision to dispense with the services of the private respondents was taken solely on the ground that they were guilty of using unfair means in the test held on 27.2.2011. To put it differently, the foundation of the action taken by the General Manager was the accusation that while appearing in the objective test, the private respondents had resorted to copying.
IBPS had relied upon the analysis made by the computer and sent report to the Bank that 18 candidates were suspected to have used unfair means. The concerned authority then sent for the chart of seating arrangement and treated the same as a piece of evidence for coming to the conclusion that the private respondents had indeed used unfair means in the examination. This exercise was not preceded by an inquiry involving the private respondents and no opportunity was given to them to defend themselves against the charge of use of unfair means. In other words, they were condemned unheard which, in our considered view, was legally impermissible."
23. In the present instance, we are of the opinion that the rules of natural justice have not been contravened by the SBI. The above judgment of Palak Modi¸ and the facts that led to such judgment are clearly distinguishable from the case at hand. As we have seen, the application of the principles of natural justice, though vital, ultimately turns on the facts of every individual case. It is not every time a particular action has a consequence that is not favourable to the petitioner that the rules may be relied upon as a fallback to nullify such action. First, the petitioner has no vested right to an inquiry, he being merely an entry-level candidate and 22 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 not employed in any manner by the SBI. He is therefore not entitled to the same terms of service that the petitioners in Palak Modi (supra) could claim by virtue of them actually being employed. His right extends, and is limited to, a fair opportunity to attempt the examination and therefore have a fighting chance at being employed by SBI. His decision to squander away this opportunity by employing unfair means in his attempt at the examination cannot be countenanced simply because the SBI did not first approach him when they discovered that his answers matched perfectly with two other candidates. There is in fact, no need for the SBI to do so. The object of the examination being to select the candidates suitable for such initial appointment, veritable evidence that the petitioner does not fall within that category, does not become unreliable or contrary to the principles of natural justice merely because the petitioner did not have the opportunity to represent against them.
24. The Court is conscious that technology often empowers citizens; at the same time it has the potential to facilitate misuse. In the context of the facts of this case, this Court is not persuaded with the appellant's submission that without tangible material or evidence, the SBI could not have inferred the employment of "unfair means"
by candidates generally and the petitioner in particular. Use of electronic devices to transmit information-either in the form of text messages or by use of hidden listening devices which go undetected may be hard to establish. That does not mean that patterns which are discernible and are thrown up on application of scientific formulae or statistical models, which leads to further examination of the primary material should be eliminated by the Courts. In the present case, the pattern which emerged showed that the appellant's results in respect of wrong answers matched with some other candidates who also appeared in the New Delhi centre. On further scrutiny, the reasonableness of the suspicion was strengthened by the manner of his attempting the answers. These, in the opinion of the Court, were sufficient basis for the SBI to conclude that unfair means had been employed and withhold his result. The directions sought are, therefore, unavailable in exercise of judicial review discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a result, this Court finds that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs"
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments 23 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant carefully.
6.2 The applicant, an SC category candidate, participated in the recruitment process initiated by RRC, NR pursuant to the 2014 employment notification for Group „D‟ posts. Although he appeared in the written examination held in November 2014, his result was withheld, compelling him to approach the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1000/2015. The Tribunal, by order dated 17.03.2015, directed disclosure of his marks and permitted participation in the Physical Efficiency Test if his marks exceeded the cut-off.
Subsequently, in related proceedings, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court directed preservation of answer sheets and answer keys. In compliance, RRC disclosed the applicant‟s marks (90.24) but simultaneously rejected his candidature on the allegation of use of unfair means, based on an investigation by an apex agency, without furnishing specific particulars of the alleged malpractice. 6.3. Aggrieved by the non-speaking rejection, the applicant again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3915/2015. The Tribunal, by order dated 02.08.2024, found that the impugned rejection lacked details of the alleged unfair means and violated principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the rejection order was quashed, and liberty was granted to the respondents to issue a detailed show cause notice with supporting material, consider the 24 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 applicant‟s reply, and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have now issued a show cause notice dated 16.10.2024, which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings.
6.4. Learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a letter No. D.O./2015/186 dated 01.04.2015 from Professor Bimal K Roy, Director, Indian Statistical Institute to Shri Satvinder Singh, Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell (R.R.C.) and the same reads as under:-
"In reference to the letter No. E(NG)II/2013/RR-1/4 dated 09/03/2015, confidential Node No. RRC/NR dated 20/02/2015 and on the basis of the candidates information (Name, Roll No. DOE (Date of Examination), TOW (Total Wrong Answer), Series (series of question paper), Wrong Answer option given by the candidates) received from the email address "Pallav Kumar"
[email protected] on Fri, March 20, 2015, 5:46 pm with subject the "Duplicate Answers for Analysis of RRC Delhi" with the attachments of two files (password protected) of 553 merit list candidates information and 1325 candidates information. The report of the analysis is based on the wrong answer option given by the candidates in the written tests against employment notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2013. Please find the attachment of the information of the 553 merit listed candidates grouped by the pattern of wrong answers options given by the candidates in the written tests.
Group 1: Five candidates of the merit list are found unmatched- pattern among 1325 candidates for wrong answers option given by them, so there is no evidence of copying with the other candidates. Group 2: Three candidates of the merit list are found with the matched-pattern for the three wrong answers option given by them and they are strongly suspected for copying with other candidates of the group since they also left blank for the same question No. of the examination.
Group 3- 125: The candidates of the respective groups are found matched-pattern with others for more than four wrong answers option given by them. So the candidates copied with other candidates of the respective group in the examination. The 25 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 candidates of the respective group may be deleted from the merit list.
With regards, Yours sincerely (Bimal K. Roy)"
6.5. The following issues arise for consideration: (i) Whether the show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 satisfies the directions issued by this Tribunal and the principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 is a reasoned and speaking order; and (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
6.6. It is undisputed that the applicant secured 90.24 marks, which is substantially above the cut-off prescribed for Scheduled Caste candidates. The sole basis for denying further participation and appointment is the allegation that the applicant used unfair means during the written examination. In its order dated 02.08.2024 passed in O.A. No. 3915/2015, this Tribunal clearly held that the earlier cancellation order was unsustainable for want of specific allegations and supporting material, and granted liberty to the respondents to issue a show cause notice along with all supporting documents. A careful perusal of the show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 reveals that it contains only a general reference to a statistical/algorithmic analysis allegedly conducted by an apex institution. The notice does not disclose the exact 26 Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 nature of the alleged unfair means, the specific answer patterns attributed to the applicant, or the material relied upon to draw adverse inference against him. The alleged report has neither been supplied to the applicant nor placed before this Tribunal. Mere assertion of confidentiality cannot be a substitute for compliance with the principles of natural justice, particularly when serious civil consequences ensue.
6.7. The impugned order dated 22.11.2024 also fails to meet the test of a reasoned and speaking order. The order does not deal with the detailed reply submitted by the applicant, nor does it record any reasons as to why the explanation offered by him was found unsatisfactory. The conclusions recorded are merely reiterative of the show cause notice and rest on undisclosed material.
6.8. The law is well settled that allegations of use of unfair means must be supported by cogent material disclosed to the affected candidate, enabling him to effectively rebut the same. The ratio laid down in Sudesh v. Staff Selection Commission, as affirmed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and followed in subsequent decisions, squarely applies. The attempt of the respondents to distinguish the said judgments on facts does not dilute the fundamental requirement of fairness and transparency.27
Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 6.9. While this Tribunal is conscious of the need to preserve the sanctity of recruitment examinations, such objective cannot be achieved by denying procedural fairness. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1 In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, all the Original Applications are allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order(s) challenged in the respective Original Applications are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to process the cases of the applicants and issue formal offers of appointment for the post(s) in question, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.2 The applicants shall be entitled to continuity of service and notional seniority only for the limited purpose of fixation of pay, increments, and other service-related benefits, in accordance with rules. However, they shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary, allowances, or other monetary benefits for the period prior to the date of their actual joining pursuant to the offers of appointment issued in compliance with this order.
28Item Nos. 80-84 /C-IV OA No. 68/2025, 70/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025 and 97/2025 7.3. The respondents shall comply with the above directions within a period of two months.
7.4. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/