Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Prem Singh vs The Union Of India on 1 April, 2014
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 511 of 2013
Allahabad this the 01st day of _April, 2014
Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J
Honble Ms. B. Bhamathi, Member-A
1. Prem Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Sri Hari Ram, resident of, care of, Anil Kumar, Railway Colony, Alladin Nagla, Bharatpur. Presently posted as, Gateman at Bharatpur, Under S.S.E./P. Way, Achnera, North Central Railway, Bharatpur.
2. Ram Kumar Meena, aged about 32 years, son of, Sri Man Singh Meena, resident of, L/47-B, Railway Colony, Achnera, District Agra. Presently posted as, Trackman, Achnera, Under S.S.E./P. Way, Achnera, North Central Railway, Bharatpur.
3. Bindraban Maduria, aged about 38 years, son of, Sri Bhagirath Prasad, resident of, Quarter No. 255/B, Railway Colony, Idgah, Agra-282 001, Presently posted as, Trackman under S.S.E./P. Way, Agra Area, North Central Railway, Agra.
4. Kalyan Prasad Meena, aged about, 32 years, son of, Late Pareekshit Meena, resident of, care of, Sri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Midhakur, Agra. Presently posted as, Gateman at LC No. 13, Unit No. 1 Bichpuri, North Central Railway, Agra.
5. Sujan Singh Meena, aged about, 32 years, son of, Sri Raghu Nath Singh Meena, resident of, 63 B/59 A, New Abadi, Sohalla, Agra. Presently posted as, Trackman under S.S.E./P. Way, Achnera at North Central Railway, Agra.
6. Lachchi Singh, aged about, 36 years, son of, Sri Harveer Singh, resident of, village, Peelwa, Tehsil, Toda Bhim, District, Karauli, Rajasthan. Presently posted as Trackman at Paprera, District Bharatpur, under the North Central Railway.
7. Maharaj Singh, aged about, 47 years, son of, Sri Hareti Ram, resident of, Village, Naya Gaon, Manpura, Tehsil, Toda Bhim, District, Karauli, Rajasthan. Presently posted as Trackman, Band Baretha, Bharatpur, under the S.S.E./P. Way Idgah, North Central Railway, Agra.
8. Badan Singh, aged about, 47 years, son of, Sri Tejpal, resident of, Chathi Kara, District, Mathura. Presently posted as Trackman under the S.S.E . P Way, Kosi Kala, District, Kosi-U.P., under the North Central Railway.
9. Dalchand, aged about, 54 years, son of, Late Dungar Singh, resident of, Quarter No. RBI DS/33/B, Kosi Kala Railway Colony, District Kosi-U.P. Presently posted as Trackman under the S.S.E. P. Way, Kosi Kala, District, Kosi-U.P., under the North Central Railway.
10. Sohan Lal, aged about, 41 years, son of, Sri Pooran Singh, resident of, Seedpur, Post Office, Brahmavad, Tehsil, Bayana, District, Bharatpur-Rajasthan, Presently posted as Trackman under the S.S.E. P. Way, Kosi Kala, District, Kosi-U.P., under the North Central Railway.
Applicants
By Advocate: Mr. Shyamal Narain
Vs.
1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad U.P.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Central Railway, Agra.
3. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), North Central Railway, Agra.
4. The Senior Divisional Engineer-I North Central Railway, Agra.
5. The Senior Divisional Engineer-II, North Central Railway, Agra.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Bashist Tiwari
(Reserved on 15th February, 2014)
O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following relief(s): -
a) That this Honble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2012, cancelling the Provisional Panel dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation No. I) as also the impugned fresh Notification dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure No. A-2 to Compilation No. I).
b) That this Honble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to complete the selection process, within a specified period of time, on the basis of the Provisional Panel dated 11.07.2012, after removing such defects as may be found therein, in accordance with law.
c) That this Honble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other relief, as the applicants might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
d) That this Honble Tribunal be pleased to award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout.
2. The brief facts of the O.A. are as follows: -
That all the applicants working on the post of Gateman/ Trackman under the Engineering Department of Agra Division of North Central Railway being fully qualified and eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of P. Way Supervisor (Pay Band `9300-34800/- Grade Pay `4200/-) against 25% quota earmarked for being filled by way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination applied for being considered in pursuance of notification dated 15.02.2012 issued by the respondents for making promotion to 24 posts (16 for General, 05 for S.C. and 03 for S.T.) of P. Way Supervisor. The applicants participated in the proposed selection/examination which was held on 03.06.2012. They were found suitable by the D.P.C. and placed on the provisional panel for the post of Senior P. Way Supervisor which was issued by letter dated 11.07.2012. The names of applicant Nos. 1 to 10 were placed at serial Nos. 8, 4, 16, 11, 5, 14, 15, 7, 19 and 18 respectively in order of merit on the said provisional panel. A planning was also made to send them for training for the said post. All of a sudden, the impugned letter/order dated 26.11.2012 was issued under the signature of Sri Vineet Jain on behalf of Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), N.C. Railway, Agra cancelling the provisional select list/panel on un-avoidable administrative grounds. No reasons whatsoever were disclosed by the respondents for cancelling this Provisional Panel. Ultimately, on 16.01.2013 under the R.T.I. Act, applicant No. 5 could get the information regarding the reasons/noting(s) for cancellation of the Provisional Panel. The Provisional Panel has been cancelled mechanically without assigning any reason on the wishes of Vigilance department. According to which, after vigilance inquiry there was change in panel position of 13 candidates and 07 candidates were to be de-paneled. The cancellation of entire selection by the respondents is against the settled legal position particularly when the Vigilance identified only 07 candidates who were liable to be de-paneled.
3. The respondents after canceling the aforesaid panel issued a fresh notification for selection on 19.12.2012 and the process is under way to quickly rush through the exercise of selection hence, this O.A. was filed by the respondents mainly on the grounds that the respondents are in a haste to finalize the promotion, in question, illegally by means of a fresh notification dated 19.12.2012. No specific irregularities have been revealed even by the Vigilance investigation but the entire panel has been cancelled, 07 candidates who have been identified could be easily de-paneled and the entire provisional panel could not be cancelled.
4. The respondents have filed an affidavit along with Stay Vacation Application against the interim stay order granted in favour of the applicants. It is worth to mention here that the respondents counsel informed that he will not file a detailed Counter Affidavit in this case and the matter may be heard on the basis of aforesaid Affidavit, filed by the respondents, in which it is contended that the provisional panel was cancelled by the competent authority because certain irregularities were detected and the matter was investigated by the Vigilance department which had advised that the same should be cancelled. Once there is irregularity in selection procedure, same can be cancelled by the competent authority. In the present case, matter has been considered up to the level of Additional Divisional Railway Manager and Divisional Railway Manager. There is nothing wrong in cancelling the provisional panel as certain mal practices were detected and the competent authority had decided to cancel this panel and consequently another letter dated 19.12.2012 for selection to the post of Senior P. Way Supervisor has been issued. It is also contended that in similar circumstances in the case of Kanhaiya Lal and others Vs. Union of India and others in Original Application No. 1771 of 2012, this Tribunal has passed an Order dated 03.07.2013 whereby the respondents were permitted to continue with the selection but conclusion of the same was prohibited. It is also submitted that due to grant of interim stay order in the present O.A., the respondents are unable to comply with the Order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1771 of 2012. As per respondents, the applicants have got no case and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
5. In addition to pleadings, the applicants have placed reliance on documentary evidence which is annexure A-1 to annexure A-14. On the other hand, the respondents have placed reliance on annexure-1 to annexure-2 filed along with Affidavit in support of Stay Vacation Application. By way of 2nd Supplementary Affidavit, the respondents have filed copy of an Order dated 03.07.2013 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1771/2012.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
7. The main submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the cancellation of entire provisional panel prepared by the respondents after holding that the selection examination is arbitrary and illegal particularly in view of the fact that during the vigilance inquiry only 07 candidates have been identified in case of whom it could be said that some mal practice has been done whereas there are other candidates who have not been found tainted by the Vigilance department itself. In such circumstances, as it is already a settled view of law that where entire selection process is not tainted and tainted candidates could be identified then entire selection should not be cancelled.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1771 of 2012 (supra), in which the Honble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has observed as follows: -
12. In view of the foregoing facts, the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 is set aside and it is directed that the select panel dated 11.07.2012 be kept intact excluding the seven candidates against whom the vigilance department has detected irregularities in connection with awarding of marks. The Honble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, to draw the conclusion, has placed reliance on the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 285. We have also gone through the aforesaid case law in which the Honble Apex Court has held as follows: -
. . .There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. The Special Committee had extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by re-evaluating the answer-sheets of all candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment, there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections is nothing but total disregard of relevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and necessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby, virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention towards the observations made by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr. Vs. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. JT 2010 (5) SC 382. We have respectfully gone through the above case law. It is apparent that the facts and circumstances of the above case are quite different than the present one before us. In the aforesaid case, large scale irregularities, leakage of papers, mass copying and impersonation was noticed during the inquiry but, in the present case there is no such situation. The Vigilance department has identified only 07 persons as beneficiaries in the investigation. There is no allegation in record against the other candidates on the panel. Unless it is impossible to identify or separate the beneficiaries from the fair candidates, the entire selection process should not be cancelled.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the Order passed by the Honble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we conclude that the cancellation of entire panel by the respondents is not justified. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to complete the selection process by separating 07 identified candidates who may be informed accordingly and result of rest of the candidates on panel should be declared within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
(Ms. B. Bhamathi) {Justice S.S. Tiwari}
Member-A Member-J
/M.M/
7