Chattisgarh High Court
Union Of India vs Adarsh Kumar 97 Wpc/342/2019 Surendra ... on 5 February, 2019
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Parth Prateem Sahu
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 260 of 2019
{Arising out of Order dated 23.08.2018 passed in Original Application No. 200/00925/2015
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur}
1. Union of India Through The Director General of Post, Ministry of Communication,
Department Of Post, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Chief Post Master General Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur- 492001
3. The Director, Postal Service (HQ) Office of The Chief Post Master General
Chhattisgarh/ Circle, Raipur 492001
4. The Assistant Director (Staff), Office of The Chief Post Master General,
Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur, 492001
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Raigarh Division, Department of Post,
Raigarh-496001
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Adarsh Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Aged about - years, R/o Village-
Shumbha, PO- Ramchaura, Via- Ishuapur, P.S.- Ishuapur, District- Saran-
841411 (Bihar)
2. Shatrughan Kumar Chaudhary S/o Shri Yadunandan Chaudhary, Aged about -
years R/o Village- Bodhi Bigha, PO Ramghat, P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda-
801305 (Bihar)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General.
For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 05/02/2019
1. Order dated 23.08.2018 passed in Original Application No. 200/00925/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') has been challenged in the present writ application. By virtue of the said decision, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 15.09.2015 2 passed by the Appellant authorities cancelling the previous examination for recruitment on the post of Postman/Mailguard for which examination was initially held on 01.03.2015 and even the result was declared on 29.07.2015.
2. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General representing Union of India, especially the Postal Department is that after the examination was held and the results declared, certain complaints were received from various sources including some of the candidates that the examination was not held in a free and fair manner. There was impersonation. There were even objections with regard to the answer key of the question paper. The issue was examined by the authorities and on a report forwarded by the divisional heads and as a final decision in the interest of fair play, the Appellant-Postal Department decided to hold re-examination by cancelling the previous result and the examination held on 01.03.2015.
3. The justification offered by the Postal Department as to the reasons given for cancellation of the previous examination was not supported by any evidence which could substantiate the plea taken as to the reason for such cancellation. Except for mere averments, nothing tangible was produced before the Tribunal as to what was being alleged or insinuated or complained of was an outcome of some kind of an enquiry held by the Postal Department which culminated into the findings which could in turn form the basis for cancellation of the examination and conduct of the re- examination.
4. The learned Tribunal, therefore, not being satisfied with regard to the bonafide of the decision to cancel the said examination took note of certain decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and decided to set aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 by virtue of which the decision to set aside the examination as well as the result was taken. The Tribunal had this to say: 3
"18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) has upheld the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding the cancellation of result on the basis of Expert Committee's reports coming to conclusion that it was a case of "mass copying". Para 84 and 85 of the judgment reads as under:
"84. The State and Vyapam supported the decision of cancellation of the results and inter alia contended that it is based on Expert Committee's Reports, which has taken into account the aformentioned material for coming to a conclusion that it was a case of "mass copying".
85. The High Court upheld the stand taken by the State/Vyapam and dismissed the writ petitions. The High Court by its reasoned judgment held inter alia that:
Firstly, it was a case of "mass copying";
Secondly, the material seized was sufficient for the Expert Comittee for coming to a conclusion that it was a case of "mass copying"found to have been done at a large scale by the appellants and other candidates by resorting to unfair means;
Thirdly, the decision to cancel the appellants' result is based on Expert Committee's report which has applied their mind to all aspects of the case after taking into account all material seized in investigation and, therefore, no fault could be found in such decision of the Expert Committee;
Fourthly, the decision has been taken in larger public interest;
And lastly, this being a case of "mass copying", it was not necessary for the State/Vyapam to give any opportunity of hearing to any candidate individually to show cause before cancellation of their results as has been laid down by this Court consistently in several decided cases referred to hereinbelow.
It is this issue, which is not carried by the unsuccessful candidates (appellants) to this Court in these appeals.
19. We have not been informed by the respondents if any committee was formed to enquire into specific cases/complaints regarding malpractices in the 4 conduct of the examination. In such a scenario, how the respondents came to the conclusion of the malpractices, is not clear to us.
20. Taking the guidance of Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned cases and considering the facts of the instant case, we find that there are no specific complaints regarding conduct of the examination, which has been brought to our notice. The apprehension and doubts raised by the Divisional Heads, have been considered without formation of any Expert Committee to decide on the issue. Since the infirmities, if any, have not been found affecting the entire selection, it is our considered view that the selected candidates should be offered appointment without canceling the entire selection proceedings.
21. Before we part, we are constrained to point out that notices were issued to respondents on 28.10.2015 and the reply has been filed on 06.10.2017 only after imposition of cost of Rs.5000/-.
We observe that some of the Annexures filed alongwith the reply are only the worksheets and not authenticated documents e.g. combined merit list (Annexure R/3) and comparison of marks obtained in test and Class X (Annexure R/7) are not authenticated by any officer of the respondent department."
5. Even at the stage of writ application, we gave an opportunity to the Postal Department duly represented through the Assistant Solicitor General to bring any material or evidence to show that the reason so pleaded or argued before us was based on certain foundational facts or evidence. Except for a bald assertion or statement made in the return filed before the Tribunal or in the writ application, there is no corresponding evidence to support the so called grounds on which cancellation of the earlier examiantion or its result was warranted. If that be so, then the view taken by the Tribunal, based on the opinion expressed in the case of Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; (2016) 7 SCC 615, cannot be said to be an erroneous view to take, in the given facts.
6. Examination conducted for recruitment and appointment cannot be cancelled at the whims and fancies on a mere hearsay. There has to be a foundation and cogent valid reason coupled with evidence which must be brought before the judicial forum, if the same is challenged. The judicial 5 conscience has to be satisfied that it was not a decision based on whims and caprice but for some valid cogent reason which pointed towards lack of fairness and conduct of an honest examination for recruitment. Those materials being absent, the decision of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with.
7. The writ application therefore stands dismissed as the Tribunal has committed no error in allowing the Original Application and directing the Appellant-Department to complete the recruitment process within a time frame.
8. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit