Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The issue involved in both the OAs i.e. OA No. 208/2025 and OA No. 209/2025 arises from a common set of facts and relief sought by the applicants therein are also common nature, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience and clarity, the pleading of O.A. No.208/2025 (Ms.Falguni Devang Parmar Vs. UOI & Anr.) is referred to as the lead case for adjudication.

1.1 The applicants, by way of the present Original Application(s), assail the correctness, justness, legality, and validity of the show cause notice decision bearing No. ECW/1025/1/JE (Ranker) Vol. II dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by the O/o Respondent No. 2 JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' whereby it has been proposed to cancel the entire selection process conducted for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical - C & W), Level-6, against the 25% Ranker quota in respect to the panel whereof had earlier been notified vide letter dated 14.11.2024 and in this regard calls upon five empanelled candidates, including the applicants herein, to submit their representations, if any, within a stipulated time limit and also being aggrieved with an order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure A/21 & 22) whereby the respondents rejected the representation of the applicants and had decided to cancel entire selection of Rajkot Division for the post of JE (Mechanical) Level - 6 against 25% Rankers Quota by scrapping the panel notified on 14.11.2024 for the said post, thus, the applicants have filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, seeking following reliefs:

3.11 The applicants also filed her detailed representation on 1.5.2025 in respect to the show-cause notice which has been duly acknowledged by the concerned Officer of the respondents. (Annexure A-20) wherein the applicants have explained that both the irregularities as mentioned in the show cause cannot be a ground to cancel the entire selection process. After completing the entire selection process as also the training the applicants herein has been declared successful and there is no irregularities has been alleged against the selection of the applicant herein under the circumstances the applicants requested the respondents to withdraw the show cause and not to cancel the entire selection process.

6. In rebuttal to the contentions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants by referring to the rejoinder besides reiterating the contents of the OA has submitted that the explanation offered by the respondents for not supplying the documents, particularly, Clauses III and IV, on the ground of confidentiality is unreasonable and arbitrary, and violates the principles of transparency. No selection process or panel can be cancelled without valid and cogent reasons, and there is no scope for invoking "confidentiality" in a matter involving cancellation of an entire selection process and the panel of selected candidates. The reasons for such a drastic action of cancelling the entire panel must not be extraneous, non-germane, irrelevant, or mala JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' fide. The action of the respondents, in the present case, gives rise to a reasonable inference that there are no valid or sustainable grounds for cancelling the selection process and the panel.

6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that it is not true that the selection to the post of JE-Mechanical, Level-6 against 25% ranker quota was not completed. Rather, the selection had already been completed. Not only this, the successful candidates were deputed for the requisite training at Ajmer for 13 weeks, which they have also successfully completed, as reflected in the result dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure A-14). They had also passed the medical examination and were awaiting issuance of formal orders of posting/promotion. The reason that the matter was sub-judiced is not only incorrect but also irrelevant. Similarly, the reason assigned that there were instructions from the Vigilance Department regarding this selection, which were confidential in nature, is also wholly irrelevant. The applicants fails to understand how the Vigilance Department came into the picture and how it could interfere in the selection process, unless there were allegations of corruption, mass copying, or similar irregularities, which is not the case here. Thus, it clearly appears that the selection has been cancelled at the behest of certain interested persons by misusing the name of the vigilance machinery. The manner in which the selection has been cancelled suggests that the decision has been taken under extraneous pressure.