Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh vs Icar on 22 May, 2024
1
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A./1216/2023
M.A./627/2024
M.A./185/2024
M.A.1498/2023
With
O.A./2768/2023
M.A./636/2024, M.A./3217/2023
O.A./1296/2023
M.A/631/2024, M.A./181/2024
O.A./3079/2023
M.A./3578/2023
M.A./628/2024
O.A./1707/2023
M.A./187/2024, M.A./2071/2023
M.A./2072/2023,M.A./629/20234
Order reserved on :13.05.2024
Order pronounced on :22.05.2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
O.A.1216/2023
1. Rakesh aged about 22 years,
S/o Shri Rajbir,
R/o 281, VPO Durjanour,
Bhiwani-127032, Haryana
2. Sonu Kumar,
Age 19 years,
S/o Ram Mehar
Resident of :
Village Sindhar, (22),
Hissar - 125033,
Haryana
3. Kamal,
Age 22 years,
S/o Shri Ramphal
Resident of :
2
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Village Kanwari, Kanwari (30)
Hissar-125037,
Haryana
4. Raj Kumar,
Age 18 years,
S/o Shri Mahendra Singh,
Resident of :
646, Viswakarma Colony,
Near Kali Devi Road, Hansi
Haryana-125033
5. Deepak,
Age 23 years,
S/o Shri Balwan,
Resident of :
Dhani Khushal, Bawani Khera
Rural (42), Bwani Khera, Bhiwani-127032
Haryana ....Applicants
(Through Shri T.R. Mohanty with Shri Munish Kumar,
Advocates)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute
Rep. by, The Secretary, (DARE) & Director General
(ICAR),
PUSA, New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
(Through Shri Bilochan Prasad for Mr.Rajpal Singh and Mr.
Ashish Rai, Advocates)
OA-2768/2023
1. Pardeep Kumar,
Aged 29 years,
S/o Shri Subhas Chander,
Resident of :
Sisai Kali Rawan (109),
Hisar, Haryana-125049
2. Mohit Kumar Shankhala,
Age 28 years,
3
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
S/o Shri Kisan Lal
Resident of :
Ward No.16, Mohalla khjatikan,
Danta Sikar, Rajasthan-332702
3. Pratham Agrawal,
Age 24 years,
S/o Shri Prahlad Agrawal
Resident of :
Ward No. 08, Shriram Ward,
Behind Girls College, Mandla,
Madhya Pradesh-481661.
4. Dashrat Singh Baraiya,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Sitaram Baraiya,
Resident of :
Ward No.7, Raja ka bag,
Tehsil Indergarh, Dohar Datia,
Madhya Pradesh-475675
5. Kaushal Kumar,
Age 26 years,
S/o Shri Ranjit Prasad,
Resident of :
Bara Khurd, Nalanda,
Bihar-803113.
6. Ronal Tarachand Gajbhiye,
Age 27 Years,
S/o Shri Tarachand Gajbhiye,
Resident of :
Near Devidas Fulwala, Plot No.392-D,
Indora, Modal Towan, QJaripatka,
Nagpur, Maharashtra-440014
7. Kush Goel,
Age 21Years,
S/o Shri Ravindra Goel,
Resident of :
1004, Shiv Shakti Nagar,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250002
8. Vijay Sheoran,
Age 29 Years,
S/o. Shri Satbir Singh,
Resident of :
Gunjar, Hisar,
4
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Haryana-125006
9. Sudesh Kumar Meena,
Age 22 Years,
S/o Shri Shivcharan Meena,
Resident of :
Atai Ki Jhopadi, Dabra,
Karauli,
Rajasthan-322255.
10. Ashutosh Kumar,
Age 26 Years,
S/o Shri Krishna Nandan Pandey,
Resident of :
Ward No.13, Moldiyar Tola Mokama,
Patna, Bihar-803302.
11. Ranjan Bhoi,
Age 26 Years,
S/o Shri Upendra Bhoi,
Resident of :
PO Bhutiarbahal, Apamara
District :Balangir, Odisha-767029
12. Ravi Kumar Ranjan,
Age 23 years,
S/o Shri Nirbhay Kumar,
Resident of :
Village Bhitti,
PO-Pararia, Banka,
Bihar-813211.
13. Sameer Anand,
Age 27 Years,
S/o Shri Vijay Kumar
Resident of :
Village Dharahara,
PO Barnausa, Nalanda,
Bihar-803116
14. Rahul,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Ranjeet,
Resident of :
47, Najibabad,
Jhakkaki, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh-246763.
15. Pallabi Mandal,
5
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Age 26 years,
D/o Shri Ashok Mandal,
Resident of :
Jharia, Hooghly,
West Bengal-712122.
16. Brajesh Kumar,
Age 30 years,
S/o Shri Ramadhar Singh,
Resident of :
Near Shiv Mandir, Arrah,
Bhojpur, Bihar-802301.
17. Ritesh Kumar Das,
Age 28 years,
S/o Shri Shanker Lal Das,
Resident of :
5/H/3,Shah Rajab Road, Hastings,
Circus Avenue, Kolkata-70022.
18. Vikash Kumar,
Age 25 years,
S/o Shri Biresh Prasad,
Resident of :
Dakhingawn, Dakhinganwa,
Gaya, Bihar-805131.
19. Dhanraj Meena,
Age 28 years,
S/o Shri Prem Singh,
Resident of :
Agarri, Karauli,
Rajasthan-322241.
20. Moumita Dutta,
Age 29 years,
D/o Shri Manik Chandra Dutta,
Resident of :
Raghunathpur Municipality,
Ward No. 1, Puruliya,
West Bengal-723133.
21. Shravan Kumar Mandal,
Age 26 years,
S/o Shri Dilip Kumar Mandal
Resident of :
Madarichak, Dhuriahi,
Katihar, Bihar-854113.
6
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
22. Rikesh Sarkar,
Age 24 years,
S/o Shri Manik Sarkar,
Resident of :
Sahabagan, Rampurhatm, Birbhum,
West Bengal- 731224.
23. Balram Verma,
Age 26 years,
S/o Shri Sarvesh Kumar Verma
Resident of :
Kotthiya, Kheri , Uttar Pradesh-262726.
24. Adarsh Gautam,
Age 26 years,
S/o Shri Satish Mishra,
Resident of :
Maulabagh, Arrah,
Bhojpur, Bihar-802301.
25. Bharat Raj,
Age 24 years,
S/o Shri Om Parkash
Resident of :
Ward No. 5,
Basai, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333036.
26. Indrjeet,
Age 30 years,
S/o Shri Panna Lal,
Resident of :
Chandanheli,
Bundi, Rajasthan-323021.
27. Ravi Prakash Chawala,
Age 29 years
S/o Shri Rang Lal Khatik,
Resident of :
Sakhoon , Jaipur,Rajasthan-303008.
28. Gulshan Kumar,
Age30 years,
S/o Shri Karunakar Chaudhary,
Resident of :
Bengahi ward No. 13,
Bairganiya, Sitamarhi,
Bihar-843313
7
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
29. Abhishek Raj,
Age 25 years,
S/o Shri Rajnandan Prasad Varma,
Resident of :
Tiuri, Nalanda, Bihar-803101.
30. Ranjish Kumar,
Age 29 years,
S/o Dhruvpati Paswan
Resident of :
Amaw, PO Kamalpur,
Tikari, Gaya, Bihar-824235.
31. Chandan Ram,
Age 26 years,
S/o Pawan Kumar Ram,
Resident of :
Village Pandari, PO Taratand,
P.S. Taratand Pandri, Giridih,
Jharkhand-815302.
32. Jayabrata Roy,
Age 25 years,
S/o Shri Jagadish Chandra Roy,
Resident of :
Dakshinpara, Dalla Malda,
West Bengal-732138.
33. Ravinder Kumar,
Age 27 years,
S/o Shri Rajinder Kumar,
Resident of :
Sisai kali Rawan (109) Hissar,
Haryana.
34. Pawan Kishor,
Age 26 years,
S/o Shri Birbal Singh,
R/o Kesrarhi, Aurangabad,
Bihar-824113.
35. Abhishek Katare,
Age 30 years
S/o Shri Devi Shankar Katare
Resident of :
Jar Pahad, Civil line, Jhansi Khas,
Uttar Pardesh-284003.
8
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
36. Ritu Raj,
Age 23 years,
S/o Shri Raushan Kumar Himanshu
Resident of :
Ward No. 6, Khairi Dhi,
PO Sonmanki Ghat,
PS. Morkahi, Khagaria,
Bihar-851205.
37. Tinku Das,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Manik Das
Resident of :
Gopalpur, Tajnagar ,
Purba Medinipur,
West Bengal-721635.
38. Mukul Singh,
Age 31 years,
S/o Shri Indu Singh
Resident of :
# 130 Village Govindpur, Teliyarganj,
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211004.
39. Upendra Kumar,
Age 33 years,
S/o Shri Jitendra Prasad,
Resident of :
Gram Rajachak, Deoria,
Patna, Bihar-804452.
40. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,
Age 30 years,
S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra,
Resident of :
Danre, Godda, Jharkhand-814153.
41. Sandeep Sarswat,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Vedprakash Sarswat,
Resident of :
Ward No. 1,
Gajsinghpur, Padampur, Ganganagar,
Rajasthan-335024.
42. Sujit Mondal,
Age 29 years
9
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
S/o Shri Sontosh Mondal ,
Resident of :
Mohammadpur, PO-Nalagola,
Sub District Malda, State West Bengal-733124.
43. Timendra Gehlot,
Age 28 years,
S/o Shri Kamal Gehlot,
Resident of :
Near vidhyashala, Chandpole,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
44. Sunil Ravidas,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Suresh Mochi
Resident of :
Sanda, Patna, Bihar-804452.
45. Sudhir Kumar Jha,
Age 30 years,
S/o Shri Arun Kumar Jha,
Resident of :
Vill-Rakhaware, Rakhaware Police Station:-Rudranpur,
Block Andhratharhi, Jhanjharpur,
District- Madhubani, Bihar-847411.
46. Praveen,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Brijnandan Roy,
Resident of :
Vill-Parmanandpur,
PO- Ladaura, Pakri, Post Sadar
Mujaffarpur, Bihar-843113.
47. Shivam Chauhan,
Age 23 years,
S/o Shri Ramchandar Chauhan,
Resident of :
Vill- Kunji ,PO-Punarji, Idilpur,
Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh-276131.
48. Saptarshi Das,
Age 29 years,
S/o Shri Swapan Kumar Das,
Resident of :
60/E ,Haran Chandra , Banerjee Lane,
Konnagar (M), Hooghly, West Bengal-712235.
10
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
49. Ravi Kumar Meena,
Age 25 years,
S/o Shri Braj Lal Meena,
Resident of :
Kundli Nadi,Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan-322024.
50. Ravinder Singh,
S/o Shri Satish Kumar,
R/o Vpo- Kandela, City
Jind-126125.
51. Deepika,
C/o Shri Pawan Kumar,
Resident of :
Village Bibipur (17),
Jind, Haryana-126102.
52. Savita,
C/o Shri Inderveer Gulia,
Resident of :
Purkhas Dhiran (159)
Sonipat, Haryana-131102.
53. Hemraj,
S/o Shri Murari Lal,
Resident of :
Gram Mohammadabad,
Post Mohammadabad, Ferozabad,
Uttar Pradesh-283204.
54. Inderveer Gulia,
S/o Shri Balbir Singh,
Resident of :
Purkhas Dhiran (159),
Sonipat-131102.
55. Kirti Singh,
S/o Shri Arun Kumar Singh,
Resident of :
Arun Vihar,Patna Bihar -800008.
56. Subrat Kumar Sahoo,
S/o Shri Bikash Chandra Sahoo,
Resident of :
Ghoradia, Ghanipur Ghoradia
Puri, Odisha-752015
57. Deepak,
11
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
S/o Shri Balwan,
Resident of :
Village Dhani Khushal,
Tehsil and District Bhawani Khera,
Haryana-127032.
58. Mandeep,
S/o Shri Satpal,
Resident of :
Near High School,
Village Pai, Thesil and District Kaithal,
Haryana-136043.
59. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Shri Satbir Ghanghas
Resident of :
House No. 39 Block No.1
Mohalla Khumaran, Kharkhari(27)
Hisar, Haryana-125033.
60. Pawan Kumar,
S/o Shri Jashwant Singh,
Resident of :
Near Hanuman mandir,
Ward No.8, Bhawani Khera,
Haryana-127032.
61. Sandeep,
S/o Shri Kaptan,
Resident of :
Dhanikhushal, Bawani Khera (Rural) 42,
Bawani Khera, Bhiwani,Haryana-127032.
62. Minakshi,
D/o Shri Ajay Sharma,
Resident of :
House No. C-233/B, Model,
Towan Extension Hisar,
Hisar, Haryana-125001.
63. Dinesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Kirpal Singh,
Resident of :
Makaan House No. 314-A/13
Saini Mohalla, Old Sabzi Mandi,
Jind, Haryana-126102.
64. Deepak,
12
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
S/o Shri Randhir Singh,
Resident of :
Village Bishu Patti, Dhakal,
Jind, Haryana-126116 ...Applicants
(Through Shri T.R. Mohanty, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Agricultural Research and Education,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Indian Agricultural Research Institute
Through its Director,
Hillside Road, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012.
3. Controller of Examinations,
Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Hillside Road, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012.
4. ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi,
Through its Director General (ICAR),
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Parsad Road,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
(Through Sh.Bilochan Prasad for Sh.Rajpal Singh, Advocate)
O.A.1296/2023
1. Vikas,
Aged 23 years,
S/o Jaiveer Singh,
Resident of :
VPO Kanwari, Teh Hansi,
District Hisar,
Harayan-125037
2. Robina,
Age 27 years,
D/o Dharmbir
Resident of :
VPO Pabra, Teh Uklana,
13
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
District Hisar,
Haryana -125037
3. Sombir,
Age 28 years,
S/o Ajit Singh
Resident of :
VPO Talu Bhiwani,
Haryana-127041
4. Rajan Pacharwal,
Age 28 years,
S/o Veer Bhan Pacharwal,
Resident of :
Village Rajana Khurd, PO Budha
Khera, Jind, Haryana - 126112
5. Amit Kumar,
Age 27 years,
S/o Ajit Singh,
Resident of :
Village Kheri Daulatpur, Teh Bawani
Khera, District Bhiwani,
Haryana-127041
6. Ankit,
Age 26 Years,
S/o Om Prakash
Resident Of:
VPO Khokha, District Hisar,
Haryana-125033
7. Nisha,
Age 19 Years,
D/o Pawan Berwal
Resident Of:
House No. 482, Sector 13, Hisar
Haryana-125005
8. Kripal Singh,
Age 27 years,
S/o Prem Singh
Resident of:
Baburi, Barari, Mathura,
U.P.-281005 ...Applicants
(Through Shri T.R. Mohanty, Advocate)
14
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Versus
1. Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Through its Director,
Hillside Road, Pusa
New Delhi - 110012.
2. Controller of Examination
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
Hillside Road, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012
3. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Through Its Director General (ICAR)
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Ministry of Agriculture and Framers Welfare,
Government of India,
Through the Secretary,
Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
(Through Dr.Ch. Shamsuddin Khan and Shri Bilochan Prasad for
Shri Rajpal Singh, Advocates)
O.A.3079/2023
1. Dinesh, aged 26 years
S/o Taresh, Group `C'
Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare,
New Delhi-110012
Resident of:
Village Taresh, House No.591, Nehla (59)
Fatehabad, Haryana-125112
2. Soni, aged 26 years
W/o Bijender, Group `C'
Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare,
New Delhi-110012
Resident of:
House No.439, Ward No.5
Near Panchayat Ghar, Village Sagwan,
Sagban (31) Bhiwani,
Haryana-127040 ...Applicants
15
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
(Through Sh.Ashutosh Pinjan for Sh.T.R. Mohanty,
Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Department of Agricultural Research and Education,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Through its Director,
Hillside Road, Pusa
New Delhi - 110012.
3. Controller of Examination
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
Hillside Road, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012
4. ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi
Through Its Director General (ICAR)
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110001 ...Respondents
(Through Shri Praveen Swarup for Shri Dinesh Maurya, Advocate)
O.A.1707/2023
1. Ajay,
Aged 25 years,
S/o Ramesh,
Resident of :
VPO Lajwana Khurd,
Jind, Haryana-126101
2. Manjeet Yadav,
Age 31years,
S/o Dharam Pal
Resident of :
House No. 10, Ward No. 1,
Dabra (164), Hisar,
Haryana- 125005
3. Anil Kumar,
16
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Age 27 years,
S/o Shri Shamsher
Resident of :
House No. 153, Near Old Post Office,
Bobua, Hisar
Haryana-125113
4. Himanshu,
Age 25 years,
S/o Shri Naveen Sharma,
Resident of :
Bapora, Bhiwani,
Haryana-127111
5. Vikas,
Age 27 years,
S/o Shri Harpal,
Resident of :
Khatikan Mohila, Ward No. 13,
Loharu, Bhiwani,
Haryana-127201
6. Monu Kumar,
Age 30 Years,
S/o Bhajan Lal,
Resident of :
House No. 657, Ward No. 02,
Bohua, Hisar,
Haryana-125113
7. Ritik,
Age 20 Years,
S/o Narendra Kumar,
Resident of :
Sheikhpura, Hisar,
Haryana-125033
8. Gurmeet,
Age 25 Years,
S/o. Satyawan,
Resident of :
Kalwan, Jind,
Haryana-126116
9. Vickram,
Age 24 Years,
S/o Jaswant,
Resident of :
17
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Masoodpur (85), Hisar,
Haryana-125049
10. Vinod Kumar,
Age 33 Years,
S/o Subhash Chander,
Resident of :
Lajwana Khurd, Jind, Fateh Garh,
Haryana-126101
11. Pawan Kumar,
Age 28 Years,
S/o Wazir Singh,
Resident of :
VPO Bad Chhapar (161),
Hisar, Haryana-125042
12. Pooja,
Age 26 years,
W/o Anil,
Resident of :
Pegan, Jind,
Haryana-126111
13. Deepak,
Age 26 Years,
S/o Dharamveer
Resident of :
(86), Bhiwani,
Haryana-127025
14. Joni,
Age 21 years,
S/o Ramesh,
Resident of :
H.No. 1178,Vill Data,
Data (83), Hisar,
Haryana-125049
15. Abhishek Meena,
Age 23 years,
S/o Dinesh Chand Meena,
Resident of :
Kemla, Karauli, Nadoli,
Rajasthan-322220
16. Rajesh Kumar Meena,
Age 28 years,
18
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
S/o Ram Phool Meena,
Resident of :
Manpura, Patan, Alwar,
Rajasthan-301414
17. Manju,
Age 24 years,
D/o Rajesh,
Resident of :
V.P.O Gharwal, Tehsil Gohana,
Hharwal (3) Sonipat, Garhwal
Haryana-131302
18. Lakhan Savita,
Age 27 years,
S/o Krishna Kumar,
Resident of :
Lohagarh, Jhansi,
Uttar Pradesh-285205
19. Krishna Kumar,
Age 23 years,
S/o Ramphal,
Resident of :
Vpo-bhurtana (39)
House No. 102, Bhiwani,
Haryana
20. Tarun Dalal
Age 30 years,
S/o Umed Singh,
Resident of :
Vpo Mohanbari (155)
Jhaswa kalan, Jhajjar,
Haryana
21. Vishal,
Age 30 years,
S/o Labh singh
Resident of :
Vpo Raogarh, Jyotiser,
Kurukshetra, Haryana
22. Naresh Chand Meena,
Age 46 years,
S/o Laxman Meena,
Resident of :
VPO Kalagurha, Karauli,
19
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Rajasthan
23. Ramdesh Meena,
Age 31years,
S/o Ramraj Meena
Resident of :
VPO, Badapura Bhauli,
Karauli, Rajasthan
24. Vishal Siwach,
Age 26 years,
S/o Rajender Siwach,
Resident of :
Daha (10) Daya, Hisar,
Haryana-125001
25. Ankit,
Age 22 years,
S/o Jaswant
Resident of :
VPO Masudpur (85)
Hisar, Haryana
26. Manoj Kumar,
Age 31 years,
S/o Krishna Kumar,
Resident of :
Gandhra (44), Gandhra, Rohtak,
Haryana-124501
27. Pradeep Kumar,
Age 29 years
S/o Saroop Singh,
Resident of :
VPO Bhainsru, Kalan, Bhainsru
Kalan (30), Rohtak,
Haryana-124501
28. Sahil,
Age 22 years,
S/o Rajesh,
Resident of :
Village Bhainsru Kalan, Bhainsru Kalan
(30), Bhasro Kalan, Rohtak,
Haryana-124501
29. Babita,
Age 31 years,
20
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
W/o Parveen,
Resident of :
Sandal Kalan (166), Sonipath,
Haryana-131001
30. Pardeep,
Age 31years,
S/o Raghbir
Resident of :
Sarangpur (93), Bhiwani,
Haryana-127021
31. Ankit Kumar,
Age 21 years,
S/o Vinod Kumar,
Resident of :
VPO Beran (16), Bhiwani,
Haryana-127028
32. Ajay,
Age about 31 years,
S/o Ishwar Singh,
Resident of :
H.No. 46, Aanad Colony, Near
Kabir Mandir, Satroad Khas, Satrod Khas
(154), Hisar,
Haryana-125044
33. Jitender S/o Jai Dev,
Age 27 years,
Resident of :
Balsmand(22) Hissar,
Haryana-125001
34. Ghanshyam,
Age 21 years,
S/o Mahendra Singh,
Resident of:
Ward no. 3, Sherada, Hanumagarh
Rajasthan - 3355503.
35. Monika,
Age 31 years
D/o Suresh Sharma
Resident of :
65 Police Colony, Near,
Sadar Thana, Bhiwani,
Haryana-127021
21
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
36. Ran Singh,
Age about 30 years,
S/o Kali Ram
Resident of :
House No. 26, Juglan (66),
Hisar, Juglan,
Haryana-125001
37. Ankit Chopra,
Age about 28 years,
S/o Hisam Singh
Resident of :
163, Sataundi (15),
Karnal, Haryana-132114
38. Sahil,
Age about 27 years,
S/o Rajesh
Resident of :
VPO Jani (54), Jani, Karnal,
Karnal, Haryana-132036
39. Kapil,
S/o Ram Kumar,
Resident of :
Banda Heri, Saharanpur,
Uttar Pradesh-247340 ...Applicants
(Through Shri T.R. Mohanty with Shri Mukesh Kumar,
Advocates)
Versus
1. Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Through its Director,
Hillside Road, Pusa, New Delhi -110012
2. Controller of Examination
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
Hillside Road, Pusa, New Delhi-110012
3. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Through its Director General (ICAR)
Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
22
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
Government of India,
Through the SECS-I-ANSI
Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001 ......Respondents
(Through Shri Devesh Maurya with Shri Ravi Kumar for Shri
Praveen Swarup, Advocates)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) By this common order, we are disposing of five Original Applications number 1216/2023, 2768/2023, 1296/2023, 3079/2023 and 1707/2023 together as the facts and question of law involved in all these cases as well as the reliefs sought by the respective applicants are same. For convenience, facts have extracted from OA nos.1216/2023 and 2768/2023.
2. By way of the present OA (OA No.1216 of 2013), the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
"8.(i) to direct the Respondent No.2 to set aside and recall the cancellation notice dated 04.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 qua the applicants for the post of Technician (T-1) and all further notices qua re- examination.
(ii) to direct the Respondent No.2 for declaring the final result for the Applicants against the said post and joining may be offered.
(iii) pass any other and further orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff."
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as follows: 23
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases 3.1 The respondent no.2 published an advertisement on 18.12.2021 for 641 posts of Technician (T-1) under the Direct Recruitment Scheme. The present applicants applied in response to the said advertisement in the month of January, 2022. The respondent no.2 conducted the online exam for the said post and the applicants appeared in the online tests on various dates starting from 28.02.2022 to 5.03.2022. On 13.06.2022, the respondent no.2 declared the results and issued score cards to all the applicants. On 12.10.2022, the respondent no.2 also issued a notice for document verification of the short listed and successful candidates. On 4.04.2023, the respondent no.2 issued a notice and cancelled the exam conducted on various dates, as mentioned above. The applicants sent representations vide email dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-8). However, the respondents have not replied to those email representations of the applicants. Being aggrieved, the applicants have come to this Tribunal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
3.2 Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the grounds taken in the OA, stating that the respondent no.2 has acted in a most arbitrary manner with a view to defeat the rights of the applicants. There is non-application of mind while cancelling the examination conducted on various dates starting from 28.02.2022 to 5.03.2022. The action of 24 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases respondent no.2 is malafide in nature and smacks of biasness. The applicants had legitimate expectation when they took the examination and were successful in the said examination and the respondent no.2 issued them notice for document verification. They allege that the respondents have engaged in colourable exercise of power in the present case. Citing the judgment of the Apex Court in Kasturba Devang Pandya Vs. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online CAT 1199, they state that the authority exercising a power holds in trust only to be exercised for a legitimate purpose. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to exercise the power of cancelling the examination for a legitimate purpose.
They have done only to benefit certain category of candidates.
3.3 Learned counsel for the applicants further states that instead of declaring the entire result of the computer based test held from 28.02.2022 to 5.03.2022 as null and void, the respondents should have segregated the tainted candidates from the non-tainted ones and should have declared the results accordingly. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the applicants cites the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC
285. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it has been held that:
"On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on 25 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases record........There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written examination either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them...... There was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. 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 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 other of 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 other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required 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 unnecessary 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."
3.4 The learned counsel further cites the judgments in Union of India Vs. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has cast the duty on the authority to first attempt to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted and only when the same is impossible they can cancel the entire examination. Citing another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anamica Mishra Vs. UP Public Service Commission, 1990 Supp SCC 692, the learned counsel for the applicants states that cancellation of entire selection process is not always 26 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases warranted. The respondents should have cancelled a particular stage of recruitment where certain irregularities have been detected.
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicants states that there is no concrete and relevant material which leads to the conclusion that there were widespread infirmities of pervasive nature which could undermine the very process of the recruitment itself in its entirety. If there was a possibility of weeding out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, the respondent no.2 should have segregated such people and gone ahead with the recruitment process for other candidates who have not indulged in any such irregularities or malpractices.
3.6 Learned counsel for the applicants further relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sachin Kumar and ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and ors., (2021) 4 SCC 631. In para 35 of the said judgment, it was held as follows:
"35......By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire 27 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them for their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process."
3.7 Learned counsel for the applicants states that there is no evidence of systematic fraud or irregularities as it has been pointed out in Sachin Kumar (supra), in the instant case. The respondent no.2 should have acted in a fair and reasonable manner and should have clarified as to how it was not possible to segregate the tainted from the non- tainted. Learned counsel for the applicants states that cancellation of examination and subsequent action is also not permissible because several of the candidates who have appeared in the examination at the relevant point of time, would cross the age limit for direct recruitment. Taking recourse to para 13 of the Apex Court judgment in Santosh Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC Online CAT 4882, the learned counsel states that age is an important and relevant factor which has to be kept in mind in public recruitment.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents refers to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and 28 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases states that the tests starting from 28.02.2022 to 5.03.2022 were conducted by M/s EDCIL India Ltd., a Govt. of India Undertaking and after conclusion of the said examination, a confidential report was submitted by the said agency revealing in detail the wrongdoings of the applicants and others during the test. In view of the anomalies being pointed out by the said agency by various persons including the applicants herein, the competent authority, in order to maintain sanctity of the examination, cancelled the examination conducted on various dates starting from 28.02.2022 at different centres across the country, vide public notice. As the examination conducted on aforementioned dates was cancelled, the subsequent actions like declaring the result and calling for counselling and document verification was also held null and void. The examination has been cancelled after due deliberation, perusal of all detailed facts and analysis of records and report submitted by M/s EDCIL India Ltd. The learned counsel for the respondents drew attention to paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 of the counter affidavit which state the difficulties of identifying tainted from non-tainted because of the enormity of the issue involved:
"5.2 & 5.3 That in reply to the contents of answering paras, it is submitted that about 10.56 lacs students filled the form for writing the exam but about 6.72 lacs took the examination. It is therefore, not possible immediately to look into each and every case as to whether usage of Unfair Means has taken place in view of the facts that there is clear report from the Agency which conducted the 29 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases examination that large scale usage of Unfair Means took place. Computer Based Test (CBT) being a highly technologically intensive exercise, assessing each and every candidate holistically for checking the usage of Unfair Means (UFM) would have entailed engagements of extremely highly skilled resources and considerable amount of time and resources. Therefore, it was decided in the interest of all stakeholders, keeping into consideration the practical constraints and timelines involved, the entire examination be scrapped and re-examination be conducted for all the appeared candidates thereby, providing them equal, free and fair opportunity."
4.1 M/s EDCIL India Ltd. has in its report mentioned large scale uses of unfair means and thereafter a Committee was constituted which looked into the matter and thereafter the examination was cancelled after due deliberation. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents refers to the Apex Court judgment in Sachin Kumar (supra) where it has been held that when recruitment for public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate and there is a strong reason to cancel the examination. He states that in view of the enormity of the all India Online examination process, it was not possible to give Show Cause Notice to each and every candidate before cancelling the examination for which about 10.56 lacs candidates filled their forms for writing the examination and 6.2 lacs candidates took the examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sachin Kumar (supra) held that:
"55 We find on the basis of the record that there is substance in the submission which has been urged by the ASG. The complaints in regard to the recruitment process 30 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases related both to the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations. The complaints were carefully analysed by the first Committee and as noted earlier serious irregularities were found. The irregularities were not confined to acts of mal-practice or unfair means on the part of a specific group of persons. On the contrary, the report of the Committee found deficiencies of a systemic nature which cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the entire process of recruitment involving both the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations. The order of the Deputy Chief Minister dated 23 December 2015 did not differ with the conclusions of the first Committee. In fact, the said order refrained from commenting on the findings of the first Committee. All that the Deputy Chief Minister's order directed was the narrowing of the scope of further investigation to one of the irregularities, that is, impersonation. In directing that a verification be carried out on whether any of the candidates in the zone of selection had been guilty of impersonation, the Deputy Chief Minister's order did not wipe out the irregularities in the entire examination process. It is not possible to accept the submission that after ordering a verification on impersonation, nothing further remained to be done and that there could be no further rejection of the sanctity of the process on the basis of the report of the first Committee. It is quite possible that the Deputy Chief Minister directed a further investigation into the allegations of impersonation only to lend credibility to the ultimate decision which he would take. Mr Patwalia has made a strenuous effort to read from the explanation submitted by DSSSB, urging that as many as three IAS officers and other officers who had appended their signatures to the explanatory note provided a justification to the defence that the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations did not suffer from flaws. It must be noted that the conduct of DSSSB and its officials was itself under a cloud. Their explanation could by no means be regarded as conclusive or binding upon the authorities of GNCTD. The Deputy Chief 31 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases Minister in recommending that the entire process be cancelled emphasised the systemic nature of the violations which had taken place. These violations may or may not involve all of the candidates within the ultimate zone of selection but that in our view is beside the point for the simple reason that the gravamen of the charge in the present case is not in regard to the taint which attaches to a specific group of persons but to the sanctity of the recruitment process as a whole. The precedents of this Court sufficiently demonstrate that when the credibility of an entire examination stands vitiated by systemic irregularities, the issue then is not about seeking to identify the candidates who are tainted. In the present case, as we have seen, there was a basic denial of equal access to the Tier-I examination. The nature of the allegations which were found to be substantiated upon a careful examination by the first Committee showed that the credibility of the process itself had been eroded. In such a situation, where a decision is taken by the Government to cancel the entire process, it cannot be held to be irrational or arbitrary, applying the yardstick of fair procedure and proportionality to the decision-making process."
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "57. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable."
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "60. For the above reasons, we order and direct:32
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
(i) The facts which have come to light during the course of the hearing of this batch of SLPs reflect on the serious flaws in the process which was conducted by DSSSB. DSSSB and GNCTD must now take adequate measures to ensure against the recurrence of such instances which erode the credibility of and public confidence in the recruitment process. We direct that a comprehensive exercise to re-visit the modalities and safeguards be carried out within a period of two months to ensure that the probity of the recruitment process in future is maintained;
(ii) The notification dated 15 March 2016 of GNCTD cancelling the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations held for recruitment to the post of Head Clerk [(Grade II (DASS)] under post code 90/09 is upheld;
(iii) The appeals filed by DSSSB (arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11940 of 2020) and GNCTD (arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12066 of 2020) are allowed;
(iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 13 January 2020 (and in consequence the judgment of the Tribunal) are set aside; and
(v) The companion appeals arising out of the SLPs (12) filed by the candidates stand dismissed."
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education Vs. K.S Gandhi and ors., 1991 (2) SCC 716, where it was held:
"The question then is whether the rules relating to mode of punishment indicated in the Appendix 'A' to the resolution are invalid. We have given our anxious thought to the contention and to the view of the High Court. In our view the punishments indicated in the last column is only the maximum from which it cannot be inferred that it left no discretion to the disciplinary authority. No axiomatic rule can be laid that the rule making authority intended that under no circumstances, the examination Committee could award lesser penalty. It depends on the nature and gravity of the misconduct to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority. In a given case, depending on the nature and gravity of the misconduct lesser punishment may be meted out. So by mere prescription of maximum penalty rules do not become invalid.
We have no hesitation to conclude that when the evidence justified the examination Standing Committee to record the finding that the examinees, parents or guardians are parties to the fabrication, it is not open to the High Court under Art. 225 to itself evaluate the evidence and to 33 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases interfere with the finding and to quash the impugned notification. This Court under Art. 136 has to correct the illegalities committed by the High Court when it exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 226. In view of the fair attitude adopted by the counsel for the Board, it is not necessary to go into the question of quantum of punishment."
5. After going through the averments made by the learned counsels for the parties, on 19.04.2024 this Tribunal sought certain information by passing the following order:
"The following information may be supplied by the respondents-ICAR in the form of an affidavit within 15 days:
(i) The respondents are directed to produce the report of M/s EDCIL detailing the malpractices adopted by certain candidates including some of the applicants.
(ii) Did the re-examination take place?
(iii) What is the correct status of recruitment?."
The respondents produced a copy of the report submitted by M/s EDCIL India Ltd. dated 2.02.2023, which was taken on record.
5.1 In addition, the learned counsel for the respondents filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents, clarifying the queries raised by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.04.2024. 5.2 The report submitted by M/s EDCIL India Ltd. was perused. The report states that IARI vide letter dated 5.12.2020 raised concern that out of the top 100 candidates, 83 candidates were from four centres in Haryana. In their letter, IARI mentioned that during exercise of document 34 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases verification, these candidates were found to have very poor knowledge and are not capable of clearing the CBT through fair means. IARI questioned the results to which the candidates were shortlisted and requested M/s EDCIL India Ltd. to cite reasons for high ratio of short listing from the said centres.
5.3 To address the concerns raised by IARI, M/s EDCIL India Ltd. authorized technical partner M/s TCS to conduct a detailed data analysis on the following parameters:
i) CCTV footage anaylsis
ii) Matching of Registration Photo of the candidate
captured during the exam
iii) Validation of application photo of the candidate
with registration Photo
iv) Biometric Mis-match during Document
Verification event
On the basis of CCTV footage, M/s EDCIL India Ltd. concluded that 104 unique candidates might have indulged in unfair practices in the examination. Similarly, by matching registration photo of the candidates captured during the examination, the report stated that there is evidence of impersonation by 49 candidates. Based on their analysis, the report has given the following suggestions:
"E) SUGGESTIONS:
35
C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases
1. The face comparison analysis evidences 69 cases (49 candidates appeared in multiple shifts and 20 candidates of photo mismatch) corresponding to 64 unique candidate roll numbers. Accordingly, as per Clauses 14 (xxiv) and 14(xxv) of the Notification, IARI can proceed to disqualify these 64 candidates. In addition, IARI may debar these candidates either permanently or for a specific period from any examination/selection held by them or from any employment under them, or if the candidate is already in service under ICAR, to disciplinary action under the appropriate rules.
2. In reference to CCTV footage Analysis, on the basis of CCTV analysis 104 candidates are considered involved in wrongdoing showing change of monitors or attachment of external hardware to their computers after registration and auto-allocation of seats in the examination and observation of IARI mentioned in letter dated 05.12.2002.
To weed out candidates who have adopted unfair means in the examination, IARI can subject these 104 candidates to a second examination and see their performance therein. This course of action may be adopted if there are no other candidates (apart from these 104 candidates) in the shortlisted 1286 candidates from the five centres at which these 104 candidates gave their CBT examination.
In the event IARI has any other basis to believe that there was widespread use of unfair means, if any, at these five centres, it may conduct re-examination for all candidates who had appeared for examination at the five centres.
It is also to submit that apart from ambiguity, as cited above, Computer Based Test for was 6.72 Lac (appeared) candidates was conducted successfully." 5.4 Learned counsel for the respondents has, in his affidavit, answered the query number (ii) "Did the re- examination took place" by stating as follows:
"4. That re-examination for the post of Technician (T-1) was conducted on 07th, 08th and 10th July 2023 across the country for the candidates who had appeared in the examination during 28th Feb-05th March 2022. Further, CBT examination (Tier-II) was conducted on 08.01.2024 for the shortlisted candidates (5391 candidates) in the re-examination. Out of 5391, 3710 candidates appeared in the Tier-II examination. A total of 1395 candidates were called for document verification and medical examination, 36 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases out of 1395, 1327 candidates were present. Based on their merit and preference of posting, the candidates have been issued provisional offer letter of appointment.
5. That at present, final results for 802 candidates has been declared and most of the candidates have already joined at their place of posting."
5.5 He further clarified that re-examination has been completed and results of 802 candidates have been declared and most of them have already joined their place of posting. He has further stated that the report of M/s EDCIL India Ltd. contains the names of persons who are indulged in malpractices or impersonation and some of the applicants' names also figures in such list.
6. We have gone through the arguments tendered by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the case including the report submitted by M/s EDCIL India Ltd. dated 22.02.2023. The report by M/s EDCIL India Ltd. states that there was large scale malpractice and impersonation in the aforementioned tests. Though the EDCIL has suggested to weed out candidates who had adopted unfair means in the examination, and respondent no.2 to subject 104 candidates to second examination and see their performance therein, it would have been impracticable or inequitable to subject only a selected group of candidates to second examination.
37C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases 6.1 As it has been rightly held by the Apex Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra), the authorities have to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process was liable to be cancelled. In the instant case, as per the report of M/s EDCIL India Ltd., there was large scale malpractice and ultimately 83 candidates out of top 100 candidates were from four centres in Haryana. Taking into consideration that 6.23 lacs candidates took the exam in various centres throughout the country, from the report of M/s EDCIL India Ltd., it can be safely concluded that the entire examination process got vitiated. The suggestion by M/s EDCIL India Ltd. that only 104 candidates should be subjected to re-examination is not equitable and it would have been discriminatory. The decision regarding whether it is possible to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted has to be taken by the authorities concerned, particularly the agency who was responsible for conducting the examination and completing the selection process. As it has been rightly held by the Apex Court in Sachin Kumar (supra) case, where malpractice or irregularities are of systemic in nature, the same casts serious doubts on the legitimacy of the entire process of recruitment. In the instant case, the respondents have taken a view that the deficiencies are of systemic in nature and they have cancelled the computer tests. It is not 38 C-2/Items-1-5 OA-1216/23 with 4 connected cases that the applicants were discriminated against. The re- examination was for all who applied for the said post and who were willing to take the test again. As it has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the re-examination took place on 7th, 8th and 10th of July, 2023 across the country for the candidates who had appeared in the examination from 28.02.2022 to 5.03.2022. Tier-2 exam was conducted on 8.01.2024 for 5391 shortlisted candidates. After document verification and medical examination, 802 candidates have been offered letters of appointment and most of the candidates have already joined their place of posting.
6.2 In view of this, the OAs lack merit and hence dismissed. No costs.
Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed in each of the case files.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/