Delhi High Court

Sh. Vijay Kumar Dahiya And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 December, 2014

Author: S.Ravindra Bhat

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 20.11.2014
Pronounced on: 24.12.2014

+ W.P.(C) 1989/2014, C.M. NO.4155/2014
SH. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Sh. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal and
Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh.
C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI.
+ W.P.(C) 2001/2014, C.M. NO.4179/2014
SH. MANJEET SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Sh. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Kewal Singh Ahuja and Ms. Prarthana Sampath,
Advocates, for petitioner nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 28 and
30 to 54.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh.
C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI.

+ W.P.(C) 2013/2014, C.M. NO.4200/2014
GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION ..... Petitioner
Through: Sh. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal and
Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocates.

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 1
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh.
C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI.
Sh. S.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Sh. P.S. Singh
and Sh. Robin George, for intervener on behalf of
87 employees of Mayapuri.
+ W.P.(C) 3410/2014, C.M. NO.7023/2014
DHARAM VIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Sh. S.S.
Rai, Sh. Rohan Gupta and Ms. Shalini Aggarwal,
Advocates.

+ W.P.(C) 3745/2014
YOGESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Sh. Anil. K. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Sh. Saqib, Advocate, for Resp. No.1.

+ W.P.(C) 4952/2014, C.M. NOS. 9915-9917/2014
SH. PRAKASH PANT ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate.

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 2
versus
THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Ms.
Nishtha Sikroria, Advocates, for Respondent Nos.
1 to 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. The Petitioners challenge the orders of the Principal Bench, Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09-03-2014 in OA Nos.1909/2012,
1554/2012, 1848/2012, 2272/2012, 579/2013 and order dated 23-05-2014 in
OA No.1621/2013. Their applications questioning the orders of the
respondent-Union of India represented through the Government of India
Press (hereafter called "UOI") were dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India Press
advertised vacancies in various posts - (Group B, Group C and Group D).
These included the posts of Assistant Binders, Carpenters, Assistant Plate
Maker, Machine Attendant Offset; Machine Assistant, besides Group D
(Laborers) posts. The vacancies were advertised on different dates, in
relation to availability of vacancies in the different centers (Govt. Press
Maya Puri, Nilokheri, Aligarh and Mainpuri). These advertisements were
issued - as noticed earlier, on different dates. After screening the responses,
the recruitment process was undertaken. In the case of Group C posts, the

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 3
selection process included trade tests besides interview; in the case of Group
D posts, it included interviews. Different selection committees were
constituted by the Central Government in respect of the different
units/Presses. In the case of individual Presses too, depending upon the
number of eligible applicants who had to be examined or considered, two or
more selection panels were constituted. All those whose names figured in
the select list were informed about their selection and were asked to
complete formalities such as medical test, police verification, etc. On the
basis of their merit in the select list, some applicants were issued
appointment letters and allowed to join. A complaint was received by the
Central Government, thereafter, alleging large scale irregularities in the
recruitment process. On 03.04.2008, decision was taken at the Ministry level
to stall the process of acceptance of joining reports by the selected
candidates, till the investigation was complete.

3. Three candidates, Dharamvir Singh, A.K. Sharma and Harish Kumar,
waited for a while. Since there was no development, they filed applications
before the CAT. Dharam Vir Singh's application,i.e. O.A. No.377/2010; was
disposed of by order dated 3.2.2010 directing the Central Government to
decide the matter in terms of the earlier orders dated 7.12.2009 passed in
O.A. No.1194/2009. The Central Government, thereafter, passed orders
dated 14.7.2010 stating that it had decided not to appoint Dharam Vir Singh
to the post. In these circumstances, he approached CAT in O.A.
No.3264/2010 challenging the order dated 14.7.2010 by which he was
denied the appointment. This was allowed by CAT, which directed the
Central Government to appoint the applicant before it. Similar directions

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 4
were given in respect of the others, i.e A.K. Sharma and Harish Kumar in
their applications; the CAT held that since many others were allowed to join
and were working, fate of the applicants would be the same as those persons,
and they would sink or swim with them. The orders of the CAT were
challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 &
5962/2011 by the Central Government.

4. Before this Court, the Central Government had argued that an inquiry
into the matter had been ordered which had been completed. A report was
submitted by the inquiring authority, namely, Chief Vigilance Officer of the
Ministry of Urban Development. The order dated 13.12.2010 was shown to
the CAT, which was issued following the report of the inquiry. This court, in
its order disposing of the writ petitions noticed and directed as follows:

"In the inquiry, following irregularities in the selection were
found:

(i) Directorate of Printing had authorized/approved only 67 posts
to be filled as Direct Recruitment vacancies/essential vacancies.
Out of this, 14 posts were not advertised. Against the remaining 53
(67-14) posts, the Press advertised/notified 179 posts. The overall
excess of posts advertised is 136 (179-53).
(ii) Approval of competent authority for advertisement of 136
excess vacancies as compared to 67 approved in relaxation of ban
orders on direct recruitment has not been made available by the
GIP, Aligarh/Directorate of Printing during the course of
investigation.
(iii) In total the Recruitment Board recommended 133 candidates
for various posts out of which appointments were made in respect
of only 58.

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 5
(iv) 49 recruitments were made against 17 approved posts in
Assistant Binder category. In addition 9 recruitments were made
in the category of Carpenter, Assistant Plate Maker, M/C
Attendant Officer and M/C Assistant Offset even though no posts
existed in these categories. As a result, the total number of
recruitment against unapproved posts was 41 (Asstt. Binder - 32,
Carpenter - 1, Asstt. Palte Maker - 2, M/C Attendant Offset - 5 and
M/C Assistant - 1).

(v) Out of 133 candidates recommended for appointment, 27 were
against approved posts and 106 against unapproved posts.

(vi) The candidates appeared for interviews in respect of
"Labourers" category in two spells, first on 22, 23 & 24 February
and second on 28th and 30th March, 2008. Neither a marking
sheet nor signed recommendations by members of the DPC which
conducted the interviews from 22nd to 24th February, 2008 were
available. Subsequently composition of the Committee was
changed by replacing two members which later conducted the
interviews on 28th and 30th March, 2008.

However, the final list of the selected candidates was prepared
after the conclusion of the interviews in the second spell without
marking sheet or signed recommendations by the Committee
which conducted the interviews in the first spell. It is not clear on
what basis the members of the Recruitment Board who have put
their signatures on the final list of selected candidates have done
so. The allegation of manipulation in the selection of candidates
is, therefore, established on the basis of documentary evidence
available on record. The members of the Recruitment Board who
have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates
should be held responsible.

(vii) On the basis of the documentary evidence, it can be
concluded that the allegation that Sh. Ravinder Singh appointed
on the post of Labourer is son of Sh. Lal Singh, who represented
as Member SC in the Recruitment Board constituted for Labourer
category, is true. Sh. Lal Singh did not furnish the certificate to the
effect that none of his family members was a candidate for the post

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 6
of Labourer 5 of 17 which is a mandatory condition for all the
members of the Recruitment Board.

(viii) In view of the documentary evidence available on record, the
allegation of irregular appointments in the inter-change category
e.g. applicant applied for Labourer post selected for the post of
Safaiwala etc. is established in four cases.

(ix) The allegation that irregular appointment of Sh.Yashpal Singh
as Offset Machine Attendant has been made without requisite
experience certificate is sustainable on the basis of documentary
evidence on record.

(x) Based on the papers received, it is established that the
application of Sh. Manjeet Sharma was considered for which the
documents were received subsequent to the last date.

(xi) On the basis of facts available on records, the allegation of
irregular appointment is Sh. Rajveer son of Sh. Nand Kishore as
Carpentar is established.

(xii) On scrutiny of the details of candidates who were
recommended for various posts by the Recruitment Board, it has
been observed that in respect of 24 candidates in Labourer
category, letters for appointment were issued that were not as per
the merit list and the selection was random. The remaining 15
candidates out of 39 were not issued the offers of appointment.

(xiii) The verification of character and antecedents of the selected
candidates in respect of Asstt. Binder (49), Asstt. Plate Maker (2),
M/C Asstt. Offset (1), M/C Attendant Offset (5) and Carpenter (1)
was done after their joining in the Press.

(xiv) Prima facie the allegation of favouritism/nepotism appears to
be sustainable. However, based on the documents and evidence
available, it is not possible to ascertain who are the agents of the
Manager, GIP, Aligarh responsible for manipulating these
selections."

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 7
------------------- ------------------ ------------------

13. We had summoned the record and we find that after the CVO
had submitted the report, the same has been discussed at various
levels. The opinion of the Ministry of Law is also taken. There is a
note dated 18.11.2011 by an official citing the opinion of the
Ministry of Law and proposing, namely, accepting the findings of
the report of investigation of complaint; setting aside the process
of recruitment in all the Presses; discharging of the appointed
candidates on the basis of said vitiated selection process;
identifying officers involved in irregularities and initiating
disciplinary action against them and the manner in which such
vacancies should be filled up in future to avoid recurrence of such
malpractices. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law and
the factual position emerging from the records, we are of the view
that directions given by the tribunal are unsustainable. We, thus,
set aside the impugned orders directing appointment of the
respondents in these writ petitions allowing these writ petitions. At
the same time, we substitute the order of the tribunal with the
following directions:

"Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from the
date of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely,
report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be
taken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if for
some reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and to
continue with the existing appointments then the respondents
herein shall also be appointed."

14. We may make it clear that we have not touched upon the
question as to whether findings of the CVO that the selection
process is vitiated because of irregularities stated therein is
correct or not. It is not even necessary to do so as all those who
are appointed are not before us and we cannot take any view in
the matter in their absence. Therefore, needless to mention, in
case the petitioners decide to scrap the selection process and the
services of those appointed are terminated, they shall be within
their right to challenge the action of the Government on its own
merits and as per law."

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 8
5. After the above remand, the Central Government issued an order,
rejecting the candidature of the present petitioners- who had been by then
appointed and were working in the Government Presses at Mayapuri, Delhi,
Nilokheri and Aligarh. These orders were challenged through various
applications before the CAT. The UOI relied on the enquiry reports
submitted by its Additional Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry
of Urban Development, in respect of each of the units/ Presses and by orders
dated 04-05-2012 and 21-05-2012 cancelled the appointments made already.
The latter order states as follows:

"The undersigned is directed to say that consequent on
receipt of complaints regarding large scale irregularities in the
recruitment process followed in the Govt. of India Presses during
2007-08, the matter was handed over to Chief Vigilance Officer,
Ministry of Urban Development for investigation.

Reports of CVO in respect of Govt. of India Presses
Mayapuri, Minto Road, Nilokheri and Aligarh have been received
wherein it has been found that large number of irregularities have
been committed in conducting selection of candidate for
recruitment. However, no appointments were made in Govt. of
India Press, Minto Road as the recruitment process was stopped
before finalization of the selections. The reports of CVO in respect
of these presses have been examined in the Ministry and accepted.
It has been decided with the approval of Minister of Urban
Development to cancel/terminate the appointments in respect of
all the candidates including those who have joined the service."

6. Aggrieved by the above decision and orders of the UOI, the
Petitioners approached the CAT. By its impugned order, the CAT rejected
their contentions. In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached
this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The employees selected and

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 9
appointed to the Mayapuri Press in Delhi have approached this court by
filing W.P.(C) 2013/2014. The employees working in the press at Nilokheri
have filed W.P.(C) 1989/2014 and 4952/2014. Employees who were
appointed at the Aligarh Press have on the other hand, filed W.P.(C)
2001/2014, 3410/2014 and 3745/2014.

7. Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that after
holding that the recruitments in the Nilokheri Press (whose employees he
represented in W.P.(C) 1989/2014 and 4952/2014) did not disclose
infirmities, such as nepotism and more recruitment than the number of
vacancies available, the CAT should not have directed cancellation of the
Petitioners' appointments, on the ground that the interview was conducted
for an impossibly short period. It was argued that this ground could apply to
Group D employees and not Group C employees, who were far fewer in
number and, therefore, had been interviewed for sufficiently long. It was
submitted that the ground of number of vacancies being far less than what
was recommended and actually filled was mistakenly invoked, though the
material on record clearly showed that the number of sanctioned posts as
well as requirements were taken note of in the Central Government's orders
dated 18-5-2007 and 05-07-2005. These clearly established that the number
of vacancies earmarked and available for such Group C employees like
Assistant Binder, etc were sufficient. It was argued that the number of posts
advertised were filled up but the issue raised by the CVO in its report was
that the number of vacancies advertised were not sanctioned. This, the
counsel submitted, was an entirely incorrect premise. It is submitted that the
CAT seems to have not even gone into the records to ascertain the facts and

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 10
the report of the CVO. Nilokheri Press, according to the newspaper
advertisement, had advertised different posts that were advertised such as
Offset Machine Attendant, Offset Machine Assistant, Offset Plate Maker,
Wiremen, Assistant Binder, Labourer, Peon, Mali, Chowkidaar, Safaiwala.
These were the different posts which were notified, against which the
number of vacancies for each posts were also indicated. Learned counsel
also argues that according to the appointment letter the maximum period of
probation was two years and the same was neither extendable nor there was
any clause requiring any specific confirmation from any authority and,
therefore, in the face of these facts even the finding of the learned Tribunal
with regard to non-completion of the Petitioners' probation is incorrect.
8. Ms. Pragya Routaray, learned counsel for Petitioners in W.P.(C)
4952/2014 argued that CAT erred in not considering the CVO's report
pertaining to Nilokheri, and instead appeared to have considered the findings
of the CVO in respect of the recruitment at Aligarh. In this regard, it was
pointed out that the nature and category of posts advertised in Aligarh
differed from what were advertised in Nilokheri; in considering the CVO's
report pertaining to Aligarh and holding that there were fatal infirmities in
the selection process, CAT erred in law.
9. Mr. Mittal, who also represented the employees appointed to the
Mayapuri Press, pointed out that the CVO in his report made the following
observations :

"v Large number of interviews for the post of Peon, Safaiwala,
Faras, Chowkidaar and Labourer were held in extremely short
time in GIP, Mayapuri which is not amenable to fair assessment."

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 11
It was urged that from the CVO's observations, as regards other posts are
concerned, showed no irregularity with regard to the holding of interviews
and the selection is absolutely fair and proper. Yet, the CAT upheld
scrapping of the entire selection process even in respect of the other posts
which were notified rather than considering the limited aspect vis-à-vis
Peons, Safaiwalas, Faras, Chowkidar and labourers, etc.
10. Mr. G.D. Gupta, Learned senior counsel, appearing for the Group D
employees of Mayapuri, argued that the finding with respect to short
interview time was erroneous. Counsel pointed out that the candidates were
interviewed in fact, in batches and asked to perform practical duties to assess
the suitability by the Selection Panel. This fact was overlooked by the CVO,
and consequently, CAT in its impugned order. It was emphasized that the
decision to terminate is in effect, punitive in nature and content, because the
employees were all confirmed after having put in more than twice the
prescribed period of probation. In the circumstances, CAT should not have
upheld their termination, but relegated them to a regular and full-fledged
inquiry where they could have established their innocence. The department
was under a duty to charge them for misconduct, if they were involved in
any unfair practice at the stage of selection. It was also urged that the
decision to terminate the petitioners was taken after four years of their
having joined employment; thus it acted very harshly upon them,
considering that they were not highly educated and would also face age bar
in all subsequent employment opportunities. Consequently, argued learned
senior counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Furthermore, all
Selection Committee Members charged with irregularities were exonerated
and that equities arise in their favour given that a period of four years were

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 12
completed. The maximum period of probation in terms of the OM of
September, 2011 was completed and the rights crystallized in respect of the
posts by virtue of the decision in State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C. Bhargav
1987 (4) SCC 482.
11. Similar arguments were addressed by counsel in respect of
employees/ Petitioners who were selected and appointed in the Aligarh Press
(W.P.(C) Nos. 2001/2014, 3410/2014 and 3745/2014). Learned counsel also
argued that the findings and observations of the CVO with regard to
vacancies in this press - like that of the other units, could not have been
upheld. Counsel stressed that the vacancies advertised were in accordance
with the senior official's (General Manager's) assessment, after approval and
the employees could not have been faulted with any deficiencies. It was also
argued that there was no irregularity in the notification of vacancies, because
the charts were prepared after the 18-05-2007 letter was issued and duly
scrutinized. It was also submitted that having held that there was no force in
the argument with respect to the excess recruitment of employees over the
number of vacancies, in favour of the petitioners, the CAT should not have
dismissed their applications, on the basis of something which was not held
by CVO in his report. It was submitted in this context that the interview
irregularities applied only to Group D employee/candidates and not to
Group C employees, who had to undergo trade test and also face interview.
Being in far fewer numbers, there was adequate time with the Selection
Committee to appraise their suitability before recommending them. These
employees also argued that as their period of probation had ended, they
could not have been terminated without a departmental enquiry into

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 13
allegations against them. The termination orders, it was urged, were unfair
and utterly arbitrary.

Contentions of the respondent
12. It is argued, on behalf of the Government of India Press, that the
decision of the CAT is unexceptionable and does not call for interference.
Submitting that the recruitment process in all three centres was
fundamentally flawed, counsel highlighted that the CVO had prepared
reports which painstakingly outlined the fatal infirmities.
13. Arguing that the report in respect of Mayapuri Unit revealed that
nepotistic practices prevailed in the recruitments, counsel highlighted that 61
out of the 100 candidates selected were related to some senior officer in the
department or the other. It was also submitted that the candidature of
apprentices was completely ignored, wherever such applicants were trained
in the concerned trade, and the report (for Mayapuri) revealed that interview
letters were issued 5-7 days before the date of interview.
14. Likewise, it was argued that the advertisement was issued on
7.12.2007 and the last date notified for receipt of application was
22.12.2007. It was submitted that 44 unapproved vacancies in respect of
various cadres were advertised and were subject matter of the recruitment
process. Counsel stated that the highlighted infirmities mentioned in the
CVO's report for Mayapuri underline that, taken as a whole, the
Government of India Press was justified in scrapping/cancelling the entire
recruitment process. It was submitted that even though there was no specific
finding on this aspect, the discussion in the impugned order and the

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 14
conclusion recorded in paragraph 7.2 shows that the CAT was not inclined
to interfere in favour of the applicants.
15. It was urged - in respect of the recruitments in the Aligarh Unit that
paragraphs 3.1 - 3.7 of the CVO's report has outlined several infirmities.
Even though, the CAT has not made any specific adverse findings, counsel
stated that it is open to the Union of India to show the material which
formed the basis of the ultimate decision to deny relief to the applicants.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's arguments that the CAT
recorded adverse findings only in respect of the short time given for
interview to the candidates is an incorrect premise and relied upon paragraph
7.1 and 7.2 of the impugned order. It was urged that likewise in Nilokheri,
44 recommendations were made against 17 approved posts and 27
unapproved posts and that out of 33 candidates appointed, 18 were in respect
of unapproved posts.
16. Learned counsel stated that for all the Units, i.e., Mayapuri, Nilokhedi
and Aligarh, the governing decisions contained in the Minutes of meeting of
5.7.2007 held under the Chairmanship of Additional Director and Head of
Department, Directorate of Printing, had clearly mandated that all Presses
had to circulate to other sister GIPs details of their surplus employees who
could be transferred or redeployed to the other sister Presses by 15.7.2007
and more importantly, advertised posts that were to be filled up by them on
direct recruitment basis/deputation. This clearly limited the discretion of the
Units which were not expected to fill all the vacancies which had been
determined and noticed in the Office Order of 18.5.2007. It was stated that,
whereas, the number of posts identified for the purpose of the Government
Presses at various locations after modernization was much larger the number

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 15
of posts identified for the purpose of direct recruitment and transfer was a
smaller figure. Each Press had to comply with the later order embodied in
the Minutes of meeting of 5.7.2007 and indicate the vacancies that had to be
filled through direct recruitment. Instead of doing so, the Selection
Committees in the present case went ahead and selected far greater number
of candidates than the available vacancy. This pointed to a clear mistake on
the part of the various Units and the Selection Committee who understood
and interpreted the Circulars contrary to their intent. It was argued,
therefore, the Central Government was entitled to exercise discretion and
cancel the entire recruitment process, instead of carrying out a segregating
exercise of trying to salvage a part of it. This exercise, it was submitted, is in
conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. O.
Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146. Reliance was also placed upon the decision
in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, for the
proposition that the recruitment agency is not bound to make appointment
and operate the entire select list for good and valid reasons. Learned
counsel for the Government of India Press, lastly, argued that no candidate
has a right to contend that he ought to be appointed. At best, he has a right
to be considered for appointment. In the present case, even though, the
appointments were made - of a large number of individuals, the fact remains
that the fatal infirmities undermined the recruitment process. This is not a
case where the petitioners can be said to have acquired an entitlement or lien
to the post so as to claim that upon completion of their probation period,
their services cannot be terminated. It was further urged that the petitioners
cannot insist that any violation of principle of natural justice took place.
The concerned authorities considered the entire records after the previous

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 16
judgment and order of this Court in the writ proceedings and made the order
cancelling the entire recruitment process. There is no arbitrariness or
unfairness and that no individual has been discriminated against or given
favourable treatment.
Analysis and Findings
17. It can be seen from the above discussion that immediately after the
recruitment process was over, apparently complaints started pouring in -
these alleged various irregularities. By the time action could be initiated and
taken, several selected candidates were appointed. The action in cancelling
the selections was challenged. Ultimately, the matter reached this court in
W.P.(C) 4745/2011 and connected petitions; this Court directed the Central
Government to take an informed decision, after applying its mind to all the
facts and materials before it. The impugned orders of 04-05-2012 and 21-05-
2012 were issued pursuant to that judgment of this court.
17. The Court first proposes to deal with the common contentions of the
petitioners. They are two in number. The first is that the Central
Government could and should have made an attempt to segregate or separate
the selected successful candidates whose role and involvement was dubious
in the recruitment process from other successful candidates, who were
innocent of any malpractice, especially when it was possible for it to do so.
In this submission, reliance was placed on O. Chakradhar (supra) - in fact
the respondents too relied on the same decision.
18. In cases involving use of unfair means in public examinations and
recruitment processes carried out by state agencies, it is necessary that the
fairness of the process should be asserted by a non-discriminatory approach.
No doubt, there are observations in O. Chakradhar (supra) suggestive of a

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 17
circumspect approach by the state agencies who have to take a slightly
individualist and graded decision. Yet, the mandate of Article 14, to ensure a
uniform and non-discriminatory standard is compulsive. Once grave
infirmities are detected, the extent and nature becomes relevant to decide
what remedial measures can be taken. In Prithpal Singh v. State of Haryana,
1994 (5) SCC 695, for instance the Supreme Court held that:
" It is in the public interest that members of the police force should
be selected objectively and fairly. The irregularities found in the
instant case show that the selection made by the Board was not
objective and fair. It is, therefore, in public interest that selections
and appointments made consequent thereon be quashed
forthwith".

In Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC165, the Supreme Court
observed as follows:

"Public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such officers
are meant for use and not abuse. In this case fraud has reached its
crescendo. The acts were motivated by extraneous considerations.
From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain
undew advantages. The whole examination and the interview have
turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who
have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shock the Court's
conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. The High
Court was not justified taking the path of least resistance stating,
in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should
have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.
In O. Chakradhar (supra) itself, the Court held that:

"..the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities
committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in
each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of
action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is no

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 18
widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it
difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully
benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it
will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show
cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to
cancel the whole selection. "
It is, thus, evident that no universal rule that wherever irregularities are
found or discerned, the appointing authority or Government department is
obliged to first examine each case, to determine if some individuals'
selections can be salvaged, or if the entire selection process should be
cancelled can be seen. That is a fact dependent exercise, contextual to the
circumstances of a given case.

19. The next question is whether this Court is constrained by the findings
of the CAT in respect of some of the issues on which it has not found
against the Petitioners. On this question, all counsel for the petitioners had
argued that since the Central Government had not preferred any proceedings
against those findings, it cannot urge that the CAT's findings were incorrect.
Counsel for the Central Government, on the other hand, argued that without
preferring any separate writ petition, it is open for it to argue that the adverse
findings against it, of the CAT, were not justified.

20. In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of
Central Excise, (1998) 3 SCC 540, the Supreme Court expressed its views
on the topic as follows:-

"26. The aforesaid decision was cited before another three Judge
Bench in the case of Baru Ram v. Prasanni, where it was not
dissented from. But in the light of the decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 19
Ajitkumar Fulsinji, the ratio adopted in the earlier-mentioned two
decisions is no more in vogue. The Constitution Bench held that
this Court has power to decide all points arising from the
impugned judgment and even in the absence of an express
provision like Order 41 Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, this Court
can devise appropriate procedure to be adopted at the hearing.
The observations of the Bench which are relevant now are the
following :--
"There could be no better way of supplying the deficiency than by
drawing upon the provisions of a general law like the Code of
Civil Procedure and adopting such of those provisions as are
suitable. We can not lose sight of the fact that normally a party in
whose favour the judgment appealed from has been given will not
be granted special leave to appeal from it. Consideration of
justice, therefore, require that this Court should in appropriate
cases permit a party placed in such a position to support the
judgment in his favour even upon grounds which were negatived
in that judgment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in Vashisht
Narain Sharma, case too narrow a view was taken regarding the
powers of this Court......"
We, therefore, concede that the respondents can not be precluded
in this appeal from canvassing for reversal of a finding contained
in the impugned judgment despite its end result being in their
favour."
The Supreme Court had referred to a previous judgment in Ramanbhai
Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji AIR 1965 SC 669, by a
Constitution Bench which ruled that a party can always support the
judgment in his favour even on grounds that were negatived in the
impugned judgment, without preferring an appeal. This point was again
driven home by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 659. In Paragraph
16 (1) the Court articulated the question and in Paragraph 17 answered it.
The discussion is as follows:

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 20
"16. (1) Whether the respondents can justify the final order of the
High Court on other grounds upon principles referable to Order
41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code without filing an appeal
in time ?
*** *** *** *** ***
...In view of the recent judgment of this Court in Ravindra Kumar
Sharma v. State of Assam (1999) 7 SCC 435 : (AIR 1999 SC
3571), it is, in our opinion, open to the respondents to attack the
adverse findings arrived at or observations made by the High
Court, even if the respondents had not filed a separate appeal
against that part of the judgment. Hence, the respondents can
contend that the finding or observations that their appointments
were tainted was not correct. We have also condoned the delay in
filing the Special Leave Petition (CC 3960/99) and therefore, for
both reasons, it will be open to them to attack the said finding in
the appeals of the appellants or as appellants in their own Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (CC 3960/99)."
In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Central Government can
support the conclusions in the impugned order, even while highlighting
the errors in respect of some of the issues, in the present proceeding.

21. The court would proceed to first consider the question of excess
recruitments. In this regard, the relevant first document, is the letter written
on 18-05-2007. That is extracted below:
"No.20(5)2002-A.III
Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development
Directorate of Printing
312 'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi-110011

Dated 18-5-2007

OFFICE ORDER

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 21
Sub: Sanctioned strength of various Government of India Presses
(under modernization scheme) - Notification regarding

In pursuance of the Govt. of India decision dated 16.8.2002 and
1.2.2006 for modernization of Govt. of India Presses and in
consultation with the Ministry of Finance, the undersigned is
directed to convey the approval of the Ministry of Urban
Development for the creation/revival/transfer/filling up of the
posts in various Government of India Presses as follows:-

(i) Creation of 693 posts (115 posts to be filled up by direct
recruitment and 578 posts to be filled by redeployment)
(ii) Revival and filling up of 464 vacant posts; and
(iii) Retention of 134 existing posts in Govt. of India Press,
Shimla
(a) Filling up of the 26 vacancies through Direct Recruitment.
(b) Redeployment of 22 employees of Shimla Press (Annexure-'E')
(iv) Retention of 181 existing posts at Govt. of India Forms
Store, Kolkata and 19 posts at Office of Assistant Director
(Outside Printing) Kolkata, subject to no further recruitments or
creation of posts in both of these offices.
(v) Creation and abolition of posts will be done
simultaneously.
(vi) All actions are to be completed by December 2007.
(vii) Regarding the surplus posts in the GIP, Shimla and GIFS,
Kolkata these post shall be treated as surplus w.e.f. date of issue
of this order. However, these surplus posts will be abolished after
individual posts are identified and incumbent exercises his option
for Special VRS or get absorbed/redeployment elsewhere, if
possible. After the expiry of 6 months from the date of this order,
the surplus posts shall be treated as vacant and abolished failing
which action will be taken after Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 22
2. The details of posts to be created and filled up by direct
recruitment and through redeployment mentioned at (i) above are
as per Annexure-A and Annexure-B.
3. The details of the 464 vacant posts to be revived and filled
up in various categories mentioned at (ii) above are as per
Annexure-C.
4. Out of 1172 posts in Govt. of India modernized Presses
coming under abolition, 876 posts have already been abolished
and 296 posts will be abolished during the course of filling up of
the posts through redeployment.
5. Consequently, the overall sanctioned strength of various
categories of posts in the 12 modernized Presses, - including Govt.
of India Press, (Production-cum-Training Centre), Shimla, - will
henceforth be 6469. The details of revised sanctioned strength of
various categories of posts in each Press are as per Annexure-D.
6. The Govt. of India Text Books Presses at Chandigarh,
Bhubaneswar and Mysore are to be privatized and 470 available
posts (at present actually available 357 posts) in these Presses are
to be retained till the retirement of the staff.
7. This issues with the approval of the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure vide their I.D. No.911/E.Coord
I/2003 dated 14.5.2003 and I.D.
No.158/Dir.(Pay)/E.Coord.I/2007 dated 14.2.2007.

(R.C. Gupta)
Deputy Secretary (P-II)"
22. It is evident that this order was a general one; it related to
identification of vacant posts, the total sanctioned posts in various cadres
and staff requirement in the light of modernization of Govt. Presses at
various locations. The next document is the Minutes of Meeting held on
5-07-2007 under the chairmanship of Shri S.K. Vywahare, Additional

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 23
Director(Admn) and HOD Directorate of Printing to discuss various
issues related to modernization of the presses as well as filling up various
posts in different categories as per the sanctioned strength after
modernization in accordance with the decision of the Government. This
was attended by 13 other senior level officers from the Directorate of
Printing. The relevant part of the minutes reads as follows:
"5. Thereafter all the presses were required to inform the action
taken by them so far and also to seek clarifications on any related
issues. During discussion in the meeting, the following decisions
were taken:
a) The vacant posts in each category will be filled up by the
method indicated in Annexure-A, B & C of the Office Order
No.20(5)/2002-A III dated 18.05.2007. The remaining vacant
posts out of the sanctioned strength consequent upon
modernization of the Presses will be filled up as per Recruitment
Rules relating to the concerned post. However, total number of
posts to be filled up should not exceed the number of total strength
of each category of post as mentioned in Annexure-D of the said
Office Order.
b) In order to give the benefit of absorption by way of
redeployment, the Presses will send their proposals for one time
age relaxation to the Directorate of Printing. After compiling the
information the concerned Administrative Sections in the
Directorate will submit the matter to the competent authority for
approval of one time age relaxation so that maximum number of
surplus employees can be redeployed/absorbed.
c) The date of issue of notification indicating the sanctioned
strength of Government of India Presses under modernization
scheme, i.e. 18.05.2007 will be the crucial date for determining
the age limit for redeployment/absorption of surplus staf .
However, this will be sent to the Ministry of Urban Development
for confirmation and in case of any change the same will be
informed. The Government of India Presses may work out their
calculation on the basis of 18.5.2007. The Presses which have
prepared the information asked for by the Directorate of Printing

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 24
vide their letter No.20(5)2002-A III dated 26.06.2007 taking into
account any other date than that of 18.05.2007 will revise their
information and send the same to this Directorate of by
10.07.2007 positively.
d) Priority for absorption/redeployment within the same Press will
be given to the employees according to their seniority subject to
clearing the trade tests, wherever applicable.

e) The interest of the surplus employees has been taken care of by
way transfer/redeployment/absorption and also special voluntary
retirement scheme. However, creation of super-numerary posts as
demanded by some Associations will not be possible as this will be
against the spirit of the Government decision regarding
modernization of Government of India Presses.
f) The surplus employees are allowed to give their options for
transfer/redeployment to other Government of India Presses
wherever possible. They will also be eligible for Special Voluntary
Retirement Scheme for surplus Government employees as per
DOPT's O.M. No.25013/6/2001-Estt.(A), dated 28.02.2002 in
terms of notification No. (-17034/2(B&F)/CM/Status Report
published in the Gazette of India on 24.07.2006.
g) It has been noticed that the Recruitment Rules for some of the
newly created posts under modernization scheme of the Presses do
not exist. The concerned Presses will consult the model RRs for
these posts as may be issued by DOPT or may be available in
other Departments/Organizations. On the basis of these model
RRs, the concerned Presses will prepare draft RRs for such posts
and send the same to the Directorate for further examination and
finalization. They will also take necessary action to fill up such
posts on ad hoc on the basis of draft RRs as prepared by them and
approved by the Directorate of Printing.
h) The data relating to surplus staff and their
absorption/redeployment and the options obtained from them for
redeployment, etc. is being compiled in the Directorate of Printing
for monitoring the absorption/redeployment process. However, it
has been decided that to maintain transparency and uniformity in
approach, guidelines will be issued by the Directorate of Printing
laying down the criteria for redeployment, for example length of

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 25
service, clearing tests/training wherever required and suitability
for the post, etc. These guidelines will be circulated to all the
Presses and also to the recognized Associations/Unions. The
seniority of such redeployed surplus employees will be governed
by the clarification given by the Directorate of Printing earlier.
i) The employees in the Government of India Test Book Presses
located at Chandigarh, Bhubaneswar, Mysore would be given
opportunity to give their option for absorption/redeployment in
other Presses and also to seek Special VRS. This has already been
notified in the Gazette of India on July 24, 2006.
j) As a consequence of modernization in all the Government of
India Presses latest machinery will be procured and installed
which would require minimum manpower for the operation of
such machines. Further the total sanctioned strength of all the
Presses has been increased with reference to the existing staff in
position. It is also relevant that the spirit of modernization is to
acquire latest technologies in Printing which would need a very
less staff strength. The management of the presses will educate
their employees and Associations about this fact.
k) All the Presses will circulate to other sister GIPs with a copy to
the Directorate of Printing, the details of their surplus employees
who can be transferred/redeployed in other sister Presses by
15.07.2007, if not circulated earlier. They will also advertise the
posts which are to be filled up by them on direct recruitment
basis/deputation basis upto 20.07.2007 positively. All the GIPs
will also send a fortnightly reports based on status upto 15 should
be sent as on 15.7.2007 and should reach Directorate of Printing
on or before 20.7.2007 indicating the action taken regarding
filling up of the posts in each category as well as regarding
Special VRS applications received and their status.
l) The break up of the post required to be retained in Government
of India Forms Store Kolkata will shortly be intimated by the
Directorate of Printing. In this regard action is being taken by DD
(B&F).
m) In regard to revival and filling up of 464 vacant posts shown in
Annexure-C, it is noticed that out of 464 posts, 14 posts of Special
Grade Machine Man (Of set) (Rs.5000-8000) have been shown
against Government of India Press, Nashik but these posts have

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 26
not been mentioned in Annexure-D containing the total sanctioned
strength of each category of post of Government of India Presses.
It has, therefore, been decided that these posts will have to be kept
in abeyance till a decision is taken in consultation with the
Ministry of Finance.
n) The training will be imparted to the employees wherever
required by taking the help of training facilities available in
Shimla, Faridabad & respective presses.
o) The action for filling up of the vacant post is to be completed by
the stipulated dated, i.e. 31.12.2007 positively.
p) In case action for filling up of any category of posts is not
possible by 31.12.2007, its intimation alongwith the detailed
reasons must be sent to DOP by 31.8.2007 positively so that
decision of the Government can be taken thereon.
q) It was also decided that GIPs will point in writing the
discrepancies, if any, in the Recruitment Rules and the DOP will
examine the same and communicate the decision thereon.
r) It was pointed out by some presses that in place of Medical Of
icer, Ministry of Health has posted Sr. Medical Officers who are
in the higher scale of pay than that mentioned in the sanctioned
strength. It was informed that the issue will be taken up with
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as well as Ministry of
Finance, for a clarification.
s) It was informed that DOP will nominate a member required for
DPC after the Government of India Presses fix up a date for the
DPC meeting. The request in this regard must be received in the
DOP at least 10 working days in advance.
The meeting ended with thanks to the Chair."

The crucial part of this document is that while it took stock of the previous
letter, it sought to operationalize the manner of filling of posts identified
earlier. Importantly, Clause 5 (k) mandated that the concerned units (Govt.
Presses) "will also advertise the posts which are to be filled up by them on
direct recruitment basis/deputation basis.." This was the aspect which

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 27
impressed the CVO when he undertook the task of reviewing the recruitment
process in each Press and preparing the reports.
23. The report in respect of Mayapuri Press (W.P.(C) 2013/2014)
highlighted the following deficiencies:
"Part-IV
7. Summary of main findings: In the entire recruitment
process, it was found that
(i) Posts advertised by GIP, Mayapuri in December, 2007
was in excess of approved number of posts essentially required to
be filled as per Directorate of Printing Office Order No.
O.M.20(5)/2002-A.III dt.18.05.2007.
(Para 3.4)

(ii) Appointments of 110 candidates (Annexure D) have been
made by direct recruitment (whereas no post by direct recruitment
was to be filled up at GIP Mayapuri in terms of para 2 read with
Annexure A of the Directorate of Printing Office Order No.O.M.20
(5)/2002-A.III dt.18.05.2007 at Appendix 1).
(Para 3.4)

(iii) Specific approval of competent authority for filling up of
the posts by direct recruitment in relaxation of ban orders appears
to have not been taken by the Press authorities from the Ministry
of Urban Development through the Directorate of Printing prior
to advertisement and filling up the posts.
(Para 3.4)

(iv) Appointment of Shri Hitesh Sagar to the post of Artist
Retoucher has been made by the then Manager, GIP, Mayapuri
vide O.M. dated 15.02.2008 without the approval of the
Competent Authority i.e., Director, Directorate of Printing which
is to be treated as irregular.
(para 3.4)

(v) A large number of interviews for the posts of Peon,
Safaiwala, Farash, Chowkidar and Labourers held in a very short

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 28
time at the GIP, Mayapuri.
(Para 5.2)

(vi) Majority of appointments made were relatives of existing
employees of the Press which could not be on merit alone and
nepotism and favoritism cannot be ruled out.
(Para 5.3)

(vii) Elder son of Shri Devendra Singh, Asstt. Manager (T),
GIP, Minto Road, has been appointment for the post of Assistant
Mechanic in GIP, Mayapuri.
(Para 5.3)
(viii) Direct Recruitments in GOI Press Mayapuri have been
made without any verification of character and antecedents of the
candidates.
(Para 5.8)

(ix) Appointments to the post of Labourer were made in excess
of the posts advertised.
(Para 5.9)

(x) Appointments to the post of Labourer made was also in
excess of the number of candidates recommended by the
Recruitment Committee."

Para 3 of the Mayapuri report took note of the 18-05-2007 order and had in
the course of the analysis revealed through two tabular statements, the
requirement of posts and those which had to be earmarked for direct
recruitment. This para, to the extent it is relevant, is extracted below:
"3.3 Thereafter, in regard to filling up of vacancies as per pre-
revised sanctioned strength, Directorate of Printing in its O.M.
No.16/8/2007-AI dated 2/9.8.2007 (Appendix-3) requested all
Managers of GIP Presses that all cases requiring relaxation of
any provisions of the recruitment rules which have become
necessary for filling up the posts through either by direct
recruitment or promotion/re-deployment/transfer, should be

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 29
identified and put up to Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development
in a consolidated manner by fourth week of August, 2007.

3.4 The Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri,
issued an advertisement (Annexure A1-3) in December, 2007
inviting applications for filling up various posts. Fifteen days
time-limit was fixed for receiving application from the date of
advertisement. IN total 94 posts in 21 categories (including three
posts in 2 categories of posts to be filled up by deputation) were
advertised. Details of post-wise number of vacancies, number of
applications received, number of candidates interviewed, number
of candidates recommended for appointment (by direct
recruitment) and number of candidates actually appointed are
given at Annexure B. It may be seen that in 15 categories of posts,
a total number of 110 candidates (Annexure B) were finally
appointed against a total of 91 vacancies advertised for filling up
by direct recruitment. Apart from above, in one category (at
Serial No.16 for the post of Khalasi Electrical) even though the
interviews were held, no candidate was recommended for
appointment (Annexure M16). In some other categories, at Serial
No.17 (Wireman), 18 (General Storekeeper - by deputation), 19
(Asstt. Inspector Control - deputation), 20 (Jr. Artist 1) and 21
(Offset Machine Man), neither any application (by direct
recruitment was received nor any interview was held and no
appointment was made (Annexure P).
**************

******************** 3.5 Following conclusions can be easily drawn from the above: -

(1) The Directorate of Printing had authorized/approved filling up only 33 posts and that too by methods other than Direct Recruitment. Out of this, 14 posts were neither advertised nor filled up. Against the remaining 19 posts, the Press advertised 94 posts (91 to be filled up on Direct Recruitment and 3 by Deputation).

(3) Approval of competent authority for filling up of these 110 posts through direct recruitment in relaxation of ban orders on direct recruitment has not been made available by the Press/Directorate of Printing.

Competent Authority for the appointment of post of Artist Retoucher is Director, Directorate of Printing (Annexure G), whereas the appointment of Shri Hitesh Sagar to this post has been made by the then Manager, GIP, Mayapuri vide OM dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure-W) without the approval of the Competent Authority. The appointment of Shri Hitesh Sagar for the post of Artist Retoucher is therefore irregular."

The total number of posts advertised was 91 as against the approval to fill 33 posts otherwise than by direct recruitment. As many as 110 selections were made. There was no approval to fill 110 posts. In the light of this factual determination, it could not have been said that the Central Government fell into error in cancelling the entire process of recruitment, for Mayapuri. Here, the court notices that the malaise was not only in regard to the amount of time given to the Selection Committee for interviewing candidates; the error or mistake was more fundamental. There were no posts that could have been filled by direct recruitment. Thus, the entire basis of recruitment to various trade based posts as well as Group D posts had been undercut. The CAT, in this court's opinion fell into grave error in concluding that "...these were all administrative lapses and the applicants cannot be penalized for the wrong doings of the respondents. If there were any discrepancies in the number of posts advertised and filled, it was for the respondents to correct those by taking post facto sanction of the competent authority. We, therefore, agree with the

The CAT's reasoning is rather blithe in its disregard to public constraints in functioning of Government departments; it is based on a casual assumption that post facto approval can be obtained - indeed should be sought and given as a matter of course. Such a sanguineness mistakenly premises public employment as a largesse.

"7. Summary of the main findings. In the entire recruitment process, it has been found that:

(A) GIP, Nilokheri during the year 2007 & 2008 advertised 125 posts which were in excess of 90 approved number of posts essentially required to be filled as per Directorate of Printing Office Order No.20(5)/2002-A.III dated 8.05.2007. Out of 125 posts advertised, 65 were approved posts and remaining 60 were not approved. 25 approved posts were not advertised. (Para 3.5.1 & 3.5.2) (B) Against the 125 posts advertised, the Recruitment Boards recommended 44 candidates for various post. The press made appointment for only 33 posts. Ten persons were not allowed to join at Nilokheri Press subsequent to suspension of Recruitment Process on 3-4-2008 as per directives of Directorate of Printing. Appointment of one candidate for the post of Artist Retoucher was not approved by DOP and hence no offer of appointment was issued against this post.

(Para 3.5.3)

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 32 (C) Out of 44 candidates recommended for appointment 17 were against approved posts and 27 against unapproved posts. (Para 3.5.4) (D) Out of 33 candidates appointed, 15 were against approved posts and 18 against unapproved posts. (Para 3.5.5) (E) There is no evidence to support any allegation of bribe or manipulation against any official of the GIP, Nilokheri. (Para 5.1.5) (F) No records are available to substantiate the allegation that Shri Mehra has purchased a car and a property at Mayur Vihar. However, Shri Mehra is stated to have purchased a flat at Dwarka as informed by himself to his office, the sources of funds for which is being examined by Directorate of Printing. In the event of any prima facie case of disproportionate assets, the matter may be referred to CBI by Director of Printing. (Para 5.1.5(b)) (G) The orders dated 25.1.2008 for giving additional charge of Manager, GIP to Shri C.S. Mehra, Deputy Director, Directorate of Printing vice Shri S.R. Bodra were issued by the Directorate of Printing without any authority in the midst of interview process already on. This appears to have been done to influence the recruitment process. Director/Addl. Director (Printing) should be held responsible for this. (Para 5.1.5 (c) (H) After orders dated February 01, 2007 giving additional charge of Manager, GIP, Nilokheri to Shri Bodra were issued, although Shri Bodra looked after the work of Manager, GIP at Nilokheri, he had not formally taken over the charge of Manager, GIP at Nilokheri in the prescribed proforma. Even Shri Mehra had taken charge not from his predecessor (Shri Bodra) but from his Deputy Manager of the Press (Shri R.B. Suhag). Directorate of Printing may look into the practice of handing over/taking over charge formally as an administrative irregularity and take appropriate measures. (Para 5.1.5(c) XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 33 (M) Appointments in April, 2008 in GOI Press Nilokheri have been made without any prior verification of character and antecedents of the selected candidates. GOI Press Nilokheri (Haryana) got the character and antecedents of the candidates verified in May/June, 2008, i.e. after a lapse of months after their appointment in March/April 2008. GIP Nilokheri did not take simultaneous action in March, 2008 for verification of character and antecedents during this period. There has been undue hurry and eagerness on the part of the Manager, GIP, Nilokheri to complete the entire process of recruitment in haste without following the prescribed norms and procedure relating to verification of character and antecedents. (Para 5.5.5)" As may be seen, out of 44 candidates recommended for appointment 17 were against approved posts and 27 against unapproved posts. Of the 33 candidates appointed, 15 were against approved posts and 18 against unapproved posts. Like in the case of Mayapuri Press, the number of candidates who could have been actually appointed regularly was far less than the number appointed. The second irregularity was that the General Manager took over under questionable circumstances. Lastly, appointments were made without any prior verification of character and antecedents of the selected candidates, in GOI Press Nilokheri; the character and antecedents of the candidates were verified in May/June, 2008, i.e. after a lapse of month after the appointments in March/April 2008. These irregularities were sufficient for the Central Government to decide to scrap the entire selection in this Press.

"3.7 Following conclusions can be drawn from the above:-

(a) The Ministry of Urban Development (Directorate of Printing) vide its office order No.20(5)/2002-A.III dated 18.05.2007 (Annexure-L4) had authorized/approved only 67 posts to be filled as Direct Recruitment vacancies/Essential vacancies. Out of this 14 posts were not advertised. Against remaining 53 (67-14) posts, the Press advertised/notified 179 posts. The overall excess of posts advertised is 136 (179-53). ** The fourteen include Electrician-1, Steno-1, LDC-3 and Copyholder-5, Tech Officer-5, Wireman-2.

(b) Approval of competent authority for advertisement of 136 excess vacancies as compared to 67 approved, in relaxation ban orders on direct recruitment has not been made available by the GIP Press, Aligarh/Directorate of Printing during the course of investigation.

(c) In total the Recruitment Board recommended 133 candidates for various post as indicated at Annexure Q-3. Out of that appointments were made in respect of only 58 (Statement-A above).

(d) There were 67 approved posts in 12 categories to be filled up by direct recruitment. Out of these, recruitments were not made against 50 posts belonging to the categories of Darkroom Assistant, Electrician, Labourer, Assistant Retoucher, Assistant Artist Retoucher, Cameramen, Stenographer, LD, Copyholder, Technical Officer, and Wireman. 49 recruitments were made against against the remaining 17 approved posts in Assistant Binder category. In addition 9 recruitments were made in the categories of Carpenter, Assistant Plate Maker, M/C Attendant Officer and M/C Assistant Offset even though no posts existed in these categories. As a result the total number of recruitment against unapproved posts was 41 (Assistant Binder-32, Carpenter- 1, Assistant Plate Maker: 2, M/C Attendant Offset: 5, and M/C Assistant Offset: 1).

(e) Out of 133 candidates recommended for selection, seventy three persons (Annexure Q-3) were not allowed to join GIP Press at Aligarh (U.P. subsequent to suspension of Recruitment Process

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 35 on 03.04.2008 as per directive of Directorate of Printing. Two persons refused to accept offer/appointment at GIP, Press, Aligarh. Against the remaining advertised vacancies 46 (179-133), the Press did not appoint any person as no selection was made. The entire recruitment process was stayed by the Directorate of Printing on 3rd April 2008 on direction of the M/o of U.D., vide its letter dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure-A).

(f) Out of 133 candidates recommended for appointment (27***) recommendations were against approved posts and 106 against unapproved posts.

***Assistant Artist Retoucher-1, Labourer-9 & Assistant Binder- 17 (as indicated in Annexure-A & C of letter dated 18.05.2007 -

      Annexure L-4)
      **************                                     *********************
      "5.1      Specific instances of alleged irregularities:
      MANIPULATION IN THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES
      BY THE RECRUITMENT BOARD IN RESPECT OF
      VARIOUS GROUP D POSTS.

5.1.1 Reference number of Complaints in which allegation is made.

Annexure C-3(ii), C-4, C-6 and C-9.

5.1.2 Specific instances of alleged irregularities-

i) On 5th March, 2008, to rectify some technical error in the list finalized on 27.02.2008 on the basis of interview conducted between 22.02.2008 to 26.02.2008, another list was prepared for Safaiwala, Peon, Chowkidar, Labourer etc. Lot of changes in the list were made and inspite of great resistance by all the outside members the list was again changed and signed y all members while previous list was torn away by the Manager. C-4

ii) The list of selected candidates finalized on 26.02.2008 by the Selection Committee on the basis of the interview conducted

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 36 between 20-25 February, 2008 was to be displayed on the notice board but it was not done. In the selection Committee meeting again convened on 05.03.2008, Manager stated that some names are to be changed in the list finalized on 26.02.2008 as per direction of the senior officers of Directorate of Printing. Thus, Manager cut some narries in the list and inserted another names in his own handwriting C-6 (iii)

(iii) In the Selection Committee meeting again convened on 05.03.2008, Manager on the pretext of rectifying some technical error in the list finalized on 26.02.2008, Manager cut some names in the list and inserted another names in their place in his own handwriting. C-9(ii)

(iv) When complainant SC Member of the Selection Committee opposed the above action, he was removed from the Selection Committee in violation of rules. One minority member was also removed from the Selection Committee. C-4

(v) When the above action of the Manager was opposed by the Selection Committee member viz., Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Dr. Naushad Äli Khan, they were removed from the Selection Committee by the Manager arbitrarily and in violation of rules. C-

(vi) The candidates selected in final list issued on 30.03.2008 have been shown selected by the Selection Committee including two new members viz., Sh. Lal Singh and Dr. Rahim Ahmed Khan whereas the fact is that these two members of the Selection Committee had not interviewed the candidates during 22.02.2008 to 26.02.2008.

(vii) It has been observed from the final selection list displayed on the Notice Board on 31.03.2008 that a lot of manipulation from the candidates from first phase of Group-D interview have been noticed. The minutes did not bear the signature of two members of the Old Selection Board. C-4

(viii) No codal procedure was followed for selection. No marks were given to any candidates on which the new Board could have taken right decision for selection. C-4

(ix) The final list of the selected candidates issued on 30.03.2008 was not signed by Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Dr. Naushad Ali Khan who were removed from the Selection Committee which conducted interview during 22-26.02.2008 which is not proper. C-6

(x) None of the applicant was selected on the basis of the interview conducted during 2nd spell for the post of Labourer. C- 3(ii)

(xi) Except one applicant who is the son of Sh. Lal Singh, member of the Selection Committee, no other applicant was selected in the final selection list on the basis of the interview conducted on 28.03.2008 to 30.03.2008. C-9 5.1.3 (i) to (xi) Facts and their analysis As per office Circular dated 30.03.2008 and Minutes attached thereto (Annexure-D), the interviews for the posts of Labourer were held on 22nd, 23rd and 24th February, 2008 and 28th and 30th March 2008. It is on record that on 5th March, 2008, another meeting was convened with a view to rectifying the technical error, the details of which were not provided (Annexure-G). The formal proceedings of the Meetings of Recruitment Board held on February 22-24th 2008 have not been made available during investigation. As such the technical errors that were stated to be rectified in the meeting of 05.03.2008 are not on record. The final list of the selected candidates in respect of LABOURER post was declared on 30-03-2008 (Annexure-D). A total of 39 candidates were selected and 6 candidates as detailed in (Annexure-D, Page 3) were placed in the waiting list. This list of final selection of the candidates was signed by the following four officers, namely:-

(i) Shri B. Ghosh, Manager, Chairman (ii) Shri A.K. Chowdhry Member Secretary (iii) Shri G.K. Sharma, Member (iv) Dr. Abduraheem. K. Member (Minority). Sh. Lal Singh, Member (SC). As per the minutes of the meeting he has been shown as absent. As per the statement dated 22.10.2009 of Dr. Naushad Ali recorded during inquiry (Annexure-L) he attended the

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 38 proceedings of the Recruitment Board held on 22nd to 24th February, 2008 as a Minority Community Member. As per the above list the interviews for the post of LABOURER were held in two spells, i.e. on February 22, 23 and 24, 2008 and 28th and 30th March, 2008.

To ascertain veracity of the allegations the main complainant Shri Vinod Kumar working as Assistant Binder (Token No.570), in the press was contacted. He informally handed over the unsigned original piece of paper (Annexure-C) in support of his allegation bearing handwritten remarks and disclosing the names of various officials of the Press and the Directorate of Printing who reportedly recommended the names for selection in the labourer category of post. The handwriting on this piece of paper is alleged to be of the then Manager of the Press (Shri B. Ghosh, since retired). No record of the proceedings with respect to this document has been kept by the Press.

In this context the statement dated 24/20/2009 of Shri Vishnu Swaroop, Member SC of the Recruitment Board recorded - during enquiry is relevant which clearly indicated that the handwriting on this paper is of Shri B. Ghosh (Annexure-I). With a view to further verifying this aspect, hand written specimen have been obtained from the personal file of Shri Ghosh which are marked as Annexure-F. It has been observed that prima facie the handwriting on the above documents, i.e. Annexure C and F tallies with each other.

The above facts reveal that the allegation of manipulation in preparation of the final list of the selected candidates is established.

The following observations also strongly support the above conclusion:-

(a) The signatures of Dr. Swaroop, Member SC were not obtained in the final list prepared on 30-03-2008 (Annexure-D). He attended the meeting of the Recruitment Board as is evident from Annexure-C (unsigned) and other documents marked as Annexure-G. It is remarkable that the Members of the

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 39 Recruitment Board finalized the list of selected candidates without any evaluation or assessment sheets. This acquires more significance as the final list was prepared after the interviews conducted in the second spell in March 2008 whereas the candidates selected were interviewed in the first spell in February 2008. The members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates should be held responsible.

(b) None of the candidates appeared in the second spell of interviews during 28th to 30th March 2008 was selected by the Recruitment Board.

(c) The names written in hand by way of cutting/overwriting as a result of manipulation more or less find place in the final list. The names indicated in this list which have been circled and alleged to have recommended the names of the candidates include that of (i) A.K. Chowdary, - A.M.(A), Minto Road and member of the Recruitment Board, (ii) Sinha (A.K. Sinha, G.M.), (iii) RC (RC Gupta, D.S.), (iv) L R (L R Gupta, DD) - All officials of the Directorate in Delhi during the recruitment process. However, authenticity of this document is not confirmed as it contains no signatures.

(d) As per the letter dated 25.3.2010 no records of the attendance during the first spell of interviews/tests held on 22, 23 and 24 Feb, 2007 has been maintained in the press.

       **************                                     *********************
      Documents relied upon: - Annexure-C, D & F
      5.1.4     Findings:-

The candidates appeared for interviews in respect of 'Labourers' category in two spells, first on 22, 23 and 24 February and second on 28th and 30th March, 2008. Neither a marking sheet nor signed recommendations by Members of the DPC which conducted the interviews from 22nd to 24th February 2008 were available. Subsequently, composition of the Committee was changed by replacing two Members which later conducted the interviews on

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 40 28th and 30th March, 2008. However, the final list of the selected candidates was prepared after the conclusion of the interviews in the second spell without a marking sheet or signed recommendations by the Committee which conducted the interviews in the first spell. It is not clear on what basis the Members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates have done so. The allegation of manipulation in the selection of candidates is, therefore, established on the basis of documentary evidence available on record. The Members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates should be held responsible."

(ii) So far as the petitioner Manjeet Sharma is concerned, the report of CVO in para 5.7.3(i) is as follows:

"As per the advertisement in the Employment News dated the 10- 16 November, 2007, the last date for submission of application for the post of Assistant Binder was 03.12.2008. As per the record of the Press one Shri Manjeet Sharma (Roll No.270) applied for the post on 21.11.2007 and the same was registered in the Press on 23.11.2007 as diary No.1884. On checking of the relevant papers of this candidate it is seen that the Provisional National Apprenticeship certificate issued by the Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi is dated 13.12.2007, i.e. issued after the last date of receipt of application form. In other words, the application was not complete in all respects but was accepted and treated as eligible one. There is also an indication on the front page of the application that he is "NOT QUALIFIED" which was subsequently marked as OK on 09.01.2008 and duly signed by the officials of the press on the front portion of the application of the form."

26. The above extracts clearly reveal that of the 133 candidates recommended for appointment, 27 recommendations were against approved posts (i.e Assistant Artist Retoucher-1, Labourer-9 and Assistant Binder-17) and 106 were against unapproved posts. Other infirmities, or deficiencies which had the tendency to fatally undermine the recruitment process were

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 41 that the signatures of a member of the selection board were not found on the recommendations; manipulations such as cutting, overwriting, etc were found in the select list, scoring out certain names and substituting them with others. Selections were conducted piecemeal; in such circumstances, the signatures of the members of the old selection board were not found on the select lists; marks were not assigned, etc.

27. The argument made by some of the selected candidates was that the infirmity in the selection process was confined to certain categories, such as Group D. A forceful plea was made that since there was a specific infirmity in respect of the time given for interviewing the candidates (which according to the CVO's report, pointed at sheer improbability if not downright impossibility, given the number of candidates interviewed during a limited time) was in respect of one Government Press and in relation to Group D posts, the absence of any mention in the report, as regards other categories, meant that the CAT erred in adopting a uniform approach and likewise, the respondents should have taken care to separate such other candidates. This court is of opinion that the defects in the selection process were so fundamental in nature that only one specific form- i.e interview time in respect of Group D candidates, in Mayapuri (and not other centers or in respect of other posts) would not have made a difference. Apart from that, the materials on record clearly showed more serious flaws: the total number of posts advertised was 91 as against the approval to fill 33 posts, otherwise than by direct recruitment. As many as 110 selections were made. There was no approval to fill 110 posts. Nor is the argument in respect of Group D candidates (who were interviewed and declared successful) that they were

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 42 interviewed in batches and made to perform practical duties to assess the suitability, by the Selection Panel, of any assistance. Likewise, as noticed in relation to the Aligarh and Nilokheri Presses (in view of the discussion previously in this judgment), the malaises were too fundamental to be disregarded.

28. The argument that since the petitioners were appointed and had functioned uninterruptedly for over five years or so had completed the maximum period stipulated for probation, they were entitled to be retained in service, unless formal disciplinary charges served and regular inquiries held, is, in this court's opinion, insubstantial. Such a rule again is not inflexible; it may possibly apply where there is no fault in the performance of the candidate, selected and appointed as a result of an otherwise valid process of recruitment. It cannot be invoked in a case, like the present one, where the selection on the basis of which the names of the candidates were selected is tainted by irregularities which strike at the root of the process itself. It is also impossible for the Government to separate the tainted candidates from un-tainted ones in the present case. The expiry of the statutory period of probation cannot act as a rule validating an otherwise indefensible selection process which should result in complete cancellation. On this score, the CAT held as follows:

"Under these circumstances, based on the above citations, we conclude that till an order of confirmation is issued by the respondents it will be presumed that the period of probation of the applicants was extended and that they continued to remain as probationers. The argument of the applicants_ counsel that they be considered as deemed confirmed is not sustainable."

29. The CAT, in its impugned order held that:

"7.2 The second issue for our determination is whether the respondents have mechanically scrapped the selection process on the ground that the Hon'ble High Court had so ordered or whether they have actually examined the report of the CVO and come to the conclusion that scrapping of the selection was necessary. In this regard we have seen the original files of the respondents. We find that the report of the CVO has been examined in great details by the respondents as is evident from their notes starting from page-18 onwards in File No. C- 13019/1/2011-Ptg. Before taking this decision they have also consulted the Ministry of Law who advised them that in the case of UOI Vs. Chakradhar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in a similar situation held that the nature and extent of irregularities and illegalities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further held that if the mischief noticed is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongly deprived of their selection then the only way out was to cancel the whole selection. The Ministry of Law further advised on the basis of the aforesaid citation that in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selectee. After consulting the Ministry of law the matter was further examined in the department and the file was seen by concerned officers of the department as well as by the Hon'ble Ministers. Based on the report of the CVO as well as the advice of the Ministry of Law obtained the respondents decided to scrap the selection. In our opinion, this decision has been taken after application of mind by the respondents and not mechanically on the ground that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had so ordered. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted on this account."

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 44 This Court is of the opinion that the infirmities and deficiencies found during the inquiry are fundamental in nature. The lack of authority to fill the number of posts that were ultimately filled; the manipulations in the selection process, the short time given for candidates to apply, the short time intimated for interview, the changes in the selection committees, lack of signatures on the select lists, etc point to deep rooted and fatal defects which rendered it beyond redemption.

30. In W.P.(C) 3745/2014 (directed against order in O.A. No. 579/2012 and O.A. No. 1554/2012), the Petitioner is aggrieved because the CAT upheld his termination on the ground of lack of qualification. It is urged before this Court, that CAT did not appreciate the Petitioner's rejoinder in which he produced documents to prove that the certificate submitted by him was genuine. The Petitioner's services were terminated by the order dated 31.10.2012 on the ground that the educational qualification certificate furnished by him was found to be fake on verification.

31. CAT relied on a DoP&T memorandum, O.M. No. 11012/7/91- Estt.(A) dated 19.05.1983, which states that a government servant who has furnished false information or relies upon a false certificate to secure appointment should not be retained in service. The respondents contended that before terminating this petitioner's appointment proper inspection was conducted to verify his certificates. A letter was written on 10.02.2012 to Gurukul Vishwavidyala Vrindavan to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate. The Vishwavidyala Vrindavan replied on 07.03.2012, to say that the certificates appear to be fake. Thereafter, another letter was written on 12.09.2012 to this Institute in order to carry out physical verification and

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 45 two officials namely Sh. Ram Dayal, Deputy Manager along with Sh. Raj Kumar, Accountant were deputed. They found that no record was available in the Institute as regards issuance of this certificate. The Institute again by their letter dated 28.09.2012 stated in writing that the certificate was a fake one. After considering the rival contentions, CAT held as follows:

"15. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that the applicant has not been able to adduce even iota of evidence to establish that his educational qualification certificate was genuine. On the other hand, we notice that the respondents have made every effort to verify the genuineness of this certificate. It was only after due diligence that they came to the conclusion that this certificate was false. They have, therefore, terminated the services of the applicants in accordance with the directions of DoP&T mentioned above. We do find that they have invoked the wrong rule, namely, 19(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for his termination. This rule reads as follows:-

"Whether any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or...."

Clearly this rule has no application in the instant case as there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been convicted in a criminal case. However, in our opinion, mere invoking wrong section or rule does not vitiate the termination, which is otherwise in order. As regards his contention that he was confirmed in service, we have already discussed this issue in earlier part of the judgment and rejected it."

32. This Court is of opinion that no fault can be found with the order of CAT in respect of this case. The petitioner's plea that he has now annexed certain documents, is of no consequence. The appointing authority got the certificates shown to it by the petitioner, verified twice. The officials who

W.P.(C) 1989/14, 2001/2014, 2013/2014, 3410/14, 3745/14 & 4952/14 Page 46 verified it, found that the document was not genuine. That the petitioner now alleges that he has documents to prove the genuineness of the certificate is of no consequence. When given the opportunity to do so, he did not avail it. For these reasons, the petition is unmerited.

33. For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that the impugned orders of the CAT cannot be faulted. The writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) DECEMBER 24, 2014