Delhi High Court
Mohit Panwar & Ors. vs Airports Authority Of India on 25 January, 2016
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on August 28, 2015
Judgment delivered on January 25, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 2204/2014, CM Nos.8554/2014 & 1226/2015
MOHIT PANWAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Adv. with
Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Mr.
Amandeep Joshi & Mr.
Sameer Sharma, Advs.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 4597/2014, CM Nos. 9152/2014 & 14388/2014
ABHAY SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. with
Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Adv.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 4279/2015, CM Nos.7761/2015
NIKHIL MAHESHWARI & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.C. Pandey, Adv. with
Mr. U.P. Singh, Adv.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.
W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected matters Page 1 of 96
+ W.P.(C) 6129/2015, CM No.11142/2015
SUBEER SARKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.C. Pandey, Adv. with
Mr. U.P. Singh, Adv.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 8098/2015, CM Nos.16766/2015
PRATEEK SINGH & ANR .... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj V. George, Adv.
with Mr. Siju Thomas & Mr.
Rohit Adlakha, Adv.
versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 8110/2015, CM Nos.16788/2015
MEENU & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj V. George, Adv.
with Mr. Siju Thomas & Mr.
Rohit Adlakha, Adv.
versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM No. 1226/2015 (for filing additional affidavit) in W.P.(C)
2204/2014
This is an application filed by the respondent to take on record the
additional documents.
In view of the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed. The additional affidavit is taken on record. Application stands
disposed of.
W.P.(C) Nos. 2204/2014, 4597/2014, 8098/2015, 8110/2015, 4279/2015
& 6129/2015
1. As the reliefs in all the writ petitions are identical with almost
similar facts, the same are being decided by this common order.
2. The writ petition No.2204/2014 Mohit Panwar & Ors. vs. Airport
Authority of India is being considered as a lead case, even though the
facts of each writ petition would be noted separately, the stand of the
respondent would be seen/considered from the pleadings filed in this
petition.
Writ Petition (C) No. 2204/2014
3. The nine petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the
notification dated March 21, 2014, whereby it was decided to redo the
entire selection process afresh for the posts published vide advertisement
No.02/2012 dated March 01, 2012 and seeking a further direction to the
respondent to issue appointment letters to the petitioners who were found
suitable and selected provisionally for the post of Junior Executive
(Engineering-Civil) and Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical).
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent invited
applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts inter-alia of
Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil) and Junior Executive
(Engineering-Electrical) in the Airports Authority of India vide
notification/advertisement No.02/2012 dated March 01, 2012. All the
petitioners appeared for the written examination on August 26, 2012 and
qualified it successfully. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners appeared for
the interview in the month of December, 2012. The respondent published
the final result in the month of January, 2013, wherein it was stated that
the petitioners are provisionally selected for the posts of Junior
Executive (Engineering-Civil) and Junior Executive (Engineering-
Electrical) and their offer letters will be issued shortly. It is also the case
of the petitioners that the respondent issued offer of appointment to the
candidates who applied for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services).
In the month of April/May, 2013, to their shock and surprise the
respondent published a notice on its website stating that for
administrative reasons the recruitment related to the posts advertised
vide advertisement No.02/2012 dated March 01, 2012 has been put on
hold/withheld until further orders. The petitioner No.9 made a
representation vide e-mail dated June 11, 2013 but was of no avail.
Similarly, the petitioner No.2 also made a representation dated June 20,
2013 requesting the respondent to issue offer of appointment, but the
said request was also not acceded to. Similarly, the e-mail dated
September 06, 2013 of the petitioner No.3 has not been answered. It was
only on the application under RTI dated November 20, 2013 to know the
status of issuance of appointment letters that a response was received
from the respondent on January 10, 2014 stating that the appointment
letters have been withheld due to some administrative reasons and no
other information is available with them regarding the advertisement
No.02/2012.
5. They initially filed a writ petition No.841/2014 which was
disposed of vide order dated February 05, 2014 in the light of writ
petition No.399/2014 wherein it was directed that the competent
authority to take a decision in the matter with expedition not later than
eight weeks from February 05, 2014. The impugned notification dated
March 21/2014 is a decision on the advertisement No.02/2012, whereby
it has been decided to redo the selection process afresh under
advertisement No.02/2012.
6. It may be necessary to state here, when the writ petition was listed
for hearing on April 02, 2014, it was stated on behalf of the respondent
that the respondent is likely to take some time informing the date for
fresh examination. It was also stated that the fresh examination is
confined only to those who appeared in the examination earlier for the
post of Manager/Junior Executive in different disciplines except for the
post of Junior Executive (Fire Services). This Court directed the
respondent to approach the Court before a firm date for the examination
is publicized.
7. It is the case of the respondent in its counter-affidavit filed
initially, that in terms of advertisement No.02/2012 dated March 01,
2012 applications were invited from eligible candidates for filling up of
588 vacancies at E-1, E-3 and E-6 level for the post of Junior Executive,
Manager and Deputy General Manager respectively in 33 grades
including 50 vacancies each of Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil),
Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical). In January, 2013 the
respondent had on its website made available a list of candidates
provisionally selected for the post of Junior Executive (Information
Technology), Junior Executive (Fire Services), Junior Executive
(Engineering-Civil) and Junior Executive (Engineer-Electrical). Before
issuing offer of appointment for the post of Junior Executive (IT),
Chairman, Airport Authority of India vide note dated February 04, 2013
forwarded the concerned file to the CVO for comments/observation.
8. That prior to investigation by Vigilance Directorate in the matter,
the appointment letters were already issued to the five successful
candidates for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services). The said
candidates had completed their training and were appointed on the basis
of successful completion of training.
9. Pursuant to the note dated February 04, 2013 of the Chairman, the
CVO vide note dated February 08, 2013 called for
documents/information against the advertisement No.02/2012 and
thereafter through several communications/instructions also called for all
the relevant files as per their requirement in the month of March, 2013
onwards. Meanwhile, pending investigation by the Vigilance
Directorate, the Chairman of the respondent vide his note dated April
04,2013 decided to defer the process as the CVO in the said note opined
that the investigation is under process and prima facie it appears that the
role of the agency may not be above Board and recommended that the
agency may not be involved in conducting any examination till such time
the investigations are concluded. Thereafter, a notice was put on the
website of the respondent on May 10, 2013 stating therein that due to
administrative reasons the recruitment process relating to advertisement
No.02/2012 has been put on hold. The Vigilance Directorate examined
the process of recruitment and submitted a preliminary report to the
Chairman as per which several irregularities were noticed in the
recruitment process especially the written examination conducted by the
agency. Thereafter the Chairman of the respondent organization
approved to refer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation on
recommendation of the CVO and the same was refered vide letter dated
May 30, 2013. Keeping in view the gravity in the matter, the respondent
organization felt, as the recruitment exercise cannot be kept in abeyance
indefinitely waiting for the findings by the CBI, a legal advice was taken
wherein it was opined that an inquiry committee may be constituted to
inquire whether in the light of the facts and notwithstanding the criminal
investigation by the CBI, the cancellation of the previous examination
was warranted and consequently a fresh examination was to be
constituted. In case the inquiry committee or the competent authority as
the case may be, comes to a conclusion that the selection process has
been tainted with irregularities for even there are some justifiable doubts
without there being any direct evidence thereto that the declared list of
candidates is dubious, the queriest may forthwith proceed with
cancellation of the existing list and undertake the process of conducting
the process afresh. The Committee headed by the Executive Director
(Technical) opined in its report dated November 7/12, 2013, that the
respondent may redo the process of written examination afresh without
involving the agency in question for the candidates already enrolled and
appeared in the written examination as if the candidates have reported
for examination but examination or further process had not happened in
the past. However, it should be subject to same number of vacancies
which were existing at the time of conducting the examination minus the
incumbants already joined as in the case of fire will remain same.
According to the Committee, there should not be any change in any of
the notified conditions.
10. The respondent had also referred to the orders passed by this Court
in writ petition No.399/2014 titled Vikas Bhardwaj vs. Airport
Authority of India wherein the Court had disposed of the petition by
noting that the report of the Committee is required to be placed before
the competent authority for taking a decision in the matter and further
the direction of the Court to take a decision though not later than eight
weeks. Accordingly, the report of the Committee was approved by the
Competent Authority on January 31, 2014, which was followed by the
notification dated March 21, 2014.
11. The counter-affidavit also refers to the report of the Vigilance
Directorate submitted to the competent authority on April 24, 2014. It
may also be relevant to state here, along with the counter-affidavit the
respondent had filed CM No.8554/2014 for directions so that fresh dates
of examination could be notified and the selection process can be
completed as per schedule. The reply to the said application was filed by
the petitioners, wherein they have objected to the right of the respondent
to cancel the examination in view of the settled law and need to
segregate tainted from untainted candidates.
12. During the course of hearing on November 13, 2014, it was
submitted on behalf of respondent that there is some internal rethinking
on the issues raised in the present petition and if granted a week‟s time
an affidavit shall be filed. The additional affidavit was filed on
November 22, 2014. In the additional affidavit, the following is the case
of respondent herein:-
(a) The number of candidates who had appeared for the
examination have been far below the number of candidates who had
applied. Infact the total number of applicants were 135367 against which
only 33037 candidates appeared.
(b) Vigilance has found the e-mails to the candidates requesting to
download the hall tickets were not sent before commencement of the
written test on August 26, 2012. Also it was not checked that how many
candidates have downloaded their hall tickets. This casual approach
might have led to lower percentage (19% as per vigilance investigation)
of candidates turning up for the written examination.
(c) With the passage of time which is almost two years, moreso
the candidates who had applied/appeared earlier might have got adjusted
at other places and if the earlier decision to redo the examination from
only amongst those candidates who had appeared/applied pursuant to the
examination conducted earlier is followed, the competition would be
very-very restrictive denying the authority of the priviledge to get the
best talent in the country.
13. It is also the case of the respondent that the new Competent
Authority reviewed the decision dated January 31, 2014 finally on
November 19, 2014, it was decided to scrap the entire process pursuant
to advertisement No.02/2012 and issue fresh advertisement for the
vacancies advertised vide the said advertisement inviting fresh
applications in general and to allow all the candidates who had applied
earlier and to give age relaxation as well as fee relaxation and also, the
appointment of five candidates who had joined the Airports Authority of
India as junior Executive (Fire Services) shall be subject to outcome of
the investigations. In other words, in view of the decision of the
Chairman dated November 19, 2014 the notification dated March 21,
2014 would stand withdrawn and the answering respondent shall issue a
fresh notification at the earliest.
14. The respondent filed a further affidavit on January 21, 2015 giving
reference to the proceedings held before the Court on January 08, 2015,
wherein it was indicated to the respondent to re-examine the issue as to
whether the Airports Authority of India is willing to investigate with
regard to other cadres apart from Junior Executive (IT) which was
investigated by the Vigilance Directorate. According to the respondent,
the matter was re-examined in the organization and it was of the view
that the detailed investigation was done by the Vigilance Directorate
with regard to the examination held for the post of JE (IT) as a test case
and Vigilance Directorate came to a definite conclusion that there were
large scale irregularities in the entire selection process. The irregularities
were serious in nature and cast a doubt on the accuracy of the results and
the integrity of the recruiting agency. Since the exam conducted for one
of the disciplines i.e. the post of JE (IT) was not above Board, it is
perfectly logical and right to have a doubt on the credibility of entire
selection process and results of the other exams conducted by the
recruiting agency at the same time for other cadres. It is also the stand of
the respondent that a Committee was constituted in connection with the
recruitment work undertaken by the agency which submitted its report
on November 7/12, 2013, which went into the irregularities committed
by the agency with regard to other cadres apart from JE(IT). According
to the respondent, as per the statistics it is clearly observed that the
maximum number of candidates in top 100 were from Delhi/NCR
notwithstanding the fact that examination conducted was on All India
basis and there was no specialised qualification which candidates of only
Delhi/NCR possessed. It is also the case of the respondent that most of
the candidates who had applied were not sent their admit cards and hence
a large number of candidates could not take the examination. Further, it
is the respondent‟s stand that the result received from the agency were
analysed by the HR, Directorate, vide their note dated October 01, 2012
and it was proposed that the department of HR considering that the
maximum number of candidates to be called for interview are residents
of Delhi/NCR and hence the interview may be held at Delhi only and the
candidates selected from other part of country may be called to Delhi.
However, the said proposal could not be finalised as it was decided that
interview may be held as per the instructions contained in the
advertisement but from the analysis made it is clear that the maximum
number of candidates belong to Delhi/NCR which is very uncommon.
The respondent also referred to the preliminary report of the Vigilance
Directorate, wherein it indicated various irregularities and further
recommended that it is a case of not only discrepancies related to
procedure and monitoring, but irregularities committed are the nature of
criminal misconduct for manipulating the written examination. The
respondent also referred to the report wherein it was recommended that
there is no requirement to wait for consolidated report of all disciplines
as one would constitute sufficient ground for sending the report to CBI.
It is the stand of the respondent that in the light of the situation
explained, the exercise of investigating other exams is completely
unproductive and will only lead to wastage of precious time for both the
Airports Authority of India and the petitioner candidates. Since a lot of
time has lapsed in the process and the authority is a premier organization
of the Country and performing very sensitive nature of service, therefore
had decided to issue a fresh advertisement inviting fresh applications for
the vacancies notified in the earlier advertisement and also allow the
candidates to appear who had applied pursuant to the earlier
advertisement to appear in the fresh examination to be conducted by
granting them age and free relaxation, wherever applicable. It is their
stand that the decision to scrap the examination is uniform without any
bias and favouritism. It gives equal opportunity to all and encourages
competition. Since the role of agency which has conducted the
examination is under cloud, no resort to clear the chaff from the grain
can be taken.
15. No reply to the said affidavit was filed by the petitioner. On
January 22, 2015, a suggestion was made on behalf of the petitioners that
the respondent can go ahead with regard to 500 odd other posts other
than to which the petitioners are contenders and they should examine the
issue of "grain and chaff" qua the petitioners i.e. whether any irregularity
can be shown so far as the selection process of the petitioners is
concerned and only in such circumstance the petitioners may possibly
not have any right either for appointment or for drawing of a select
list/merit list. The matter was again taken up for hearing on May 01,
2015, when this Court noting, the submission of the learned ASG on
instructions that the respondent will endeavour to conduct a specific
inquiry and investigation as to whether there can be separation of the
tainted from untainted candidates in the facts of the present case with
regard to the posts of JE (Electrical), JE (Civil), JE (IT), passed a very
detail order and was of the view that the respondent must with
expedition and necessary resources at its command, conduct an inquiry
and investigation with respect to the petitioners for the aforesaid posts in
the Centres in which they had appeared and file its report as regards
separation of tainted from untainted candidates, if possible in the facts of
this case. The respondent filed an affidavit on August 05, 2015. It is the
stand of the respondent that based on an investigation, the competent
authority had accepted the preliminary report dated May 21, 2015 on
July 27, 2015, wherein it has been found that success rate in terms of
percentage of the candidates who opted Delhi as a centre, is
disproportionately high and the recruitment process has been
manipulated to favour set of candidates (petitioners) belonging to Delhi
region mainly Haryana State or those candidates who have obtained
qualifying degree from the State and the higher written marks of these
candidates do not match with their poor credentials with the average
marks obtained by All India candidates with better credentials.
According to the respondent, the finding reiterates the investigation done
by the Directorate of Vigilance and the preliminary report of the
Directorate on the basis of which criminal investigations are pending.
16. The respondent would state that the investigation has further
revealed that large percentage of options exercised by the petitioners of
wrong questions matches with each other, which is abnormal while
making one out of four options when the booklet series were different.
Had there been a fair competition, such similarities in the result of
written examination in all these disciplines were not possible by any
means. It is their case that the report also pointed out the possibilities
which existed for the manipulation of the results and finally arrived at a
conclusion that on careful examination of the answering patterns, results
of the written examination, the centre of examinations and credentials of
the petitioners viz a viz other candidates, it appears that the petitioners
belonged to category of tainted candidates. They referred to one of the
petitioners namely Naveen, petitioner No.33, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Roll
No.117315. According to investigation, he did not appear in the written
test held for the post of Junior Executive (Airport-Operations).
Similarly, Sh. Manu Yadav, S/o Deputy Singh Yadav having Roll No.
118065 and being petitioner No. 35 in W.P.(C) No. 4597/2014 did not
appear in the interview for the post of Junior Executive (Airport-
Operations). The respondent would state, the allegations/malpractices
against the agency M/S C.P.R are very serious and as the Airports
Authority of India does not have resources to investigate the outside
agency like M/S C.P.R., candidates etc, hence on the recommendation of
CBI, the matter has been referred to the Crime Branch for investigation
and FIR has been registered. The respondent would also state, that this
investigation i.e preliminary report dated May 21, 2015 was not there
before the Competent Authority when a decision was taken to scrap the
entire recruitment process. The documents before the Competent
Authority were the preliminary report submitted to the Chairman on May
9, 2013 and report of the committee dated November 7, 2013. Hence,
the Airports Authority of India relies upon the preliminary report by the
Directorate of Vigilance and the report of the committee and at best the
preliminary report of the inquiry or investigation pursuant to the orders
passed by this Court
Writ Petition (C) No. 6129/2015
17. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia seeking
the reliefs for quashing notification dated March 21, 2014 and for a
direction against the respondent authority to issue appointment letter for
the post of Junior Executive (Engineering-Information Technology) and
fix the seniority from the date appointment letters were issued to the
persons appointed as Junior Executive (Fire-Services). It is the case of
the petitioner, that pursuant to the advertisement dated March 1, 2012 of
the respondent authority inviting applications for around 558 vacancies
for 33 different post including Junior Executive (Engineering-
Information Technology), the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post
and was called to appear in the written examination held on August 26,
2012. The results of the written examination were declared on October
15, 2012. He was called for the interview on November 26, 2012. The
respondent authority prepared, finalized and uploaded the final select list
for the post of Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil), Junior Executive
(Engineering-Electrical), Junior Executive (Fire-Services) and Junior
Executive (Information-Technology), wherein the petitioner was
declared successful and was intimated that the offer of appointment will
be issued shortly. Immediately thereafter, the appointment letters were
issued to the Junior Executive (Fire-Services). The petitioner having not
received the appointment letter, had vide e-mail dated February 8, 2013
and April 8, 2013, sought to inquire with regard to the issuance of the
appointment letter from the respondent. However, petitioner did not
receive any reply for the same. He, to his shock, came to know that the
respondent authority had vide notice published on the website
represented that due to administrative reasons the recruitment process
relating to the post advertised vide advertisement No. 2/2012 dated
March 1, 2012 has been put on hold until further orders. The petitioner
having failed to elicit any response was constrained to seek information
requesting issuance of the appointment letters in terms of the final select
list published by the respondent vide e-mails dated July 5, 2013, October
16, 2013 and October 30, 2013. The petitioner sought to inquire from
the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances, Govt.
of India also. However, the respondent authority gave a vague and
unreasoned reply. He would also refer to filing of the W.P.(C) No.
399/2014, issuance of notification dated March 21, 2014 by the
respondent authority. He would also refer to W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014
wherein a similar challenge has been made and also in W.P.(C) No.
4597/2014. He would also state, that having come to know about the
pendency of W.P. (C) No. 4597/2014, he filed CM No. 14388/2014 in
the said writ petition seeking impleadment, wherein liberty was given to
file independent proceedings.
18. The respondent had filed a detailed counter-affidavit. One of the
preliminary objections taken by the respondent is, of issue of delay and
laches. It is the stand of the respondent, that the petitioner was fully
aware of notification dated March 21, 2014. However instead of
approaching the court, the petitioner was sitting on the fence awaiting
the outcome of W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014. Much water has flown
inasmuch as this Court had directed the Airports Authority of India to
continue with fresh selection process for appointment to other posts than
to which the petitioners were contenders. In the absence of any proper
explanation for delay, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Insofar as
the other contents of the counter affidavit are concerned, suffice to state
that, as I have already reproduced the stand of the respondent Airports
Authority of India in the pleadings in W.P(C) No.2204/2014 and
additional affidavits filed from time to time in the said writ petition, for
the sake of brevity, I would not refer to the same once again.
Writ Petition (C) No. 4597/2014
19. The thirty three (33) petitioners have filed this petition inter-alia
seeking for quashing the notification dated March 21, 2014 issued by the
respondent with a further direction to the respondent to forthwith issue
offer of appointment/appointment letters to the petitioners who were
found suitable and were selected provisionally for the post of Junior
Executive (Engineering-Electrical) and Junior Executive (Information
Technology) and also for a direction to declare the results/final merit list
of the selection process for the post of Junior Executive (Airport-
Operations) and issue forthwith offer of appointment/appointment letters
to the said petitioners who were found suitable/successful and fix their
seniority from the date when the appointment letters had been issued to
the Junior Executive (Fire-Services). Suffice to state, it is the case of the
petitioners that they have been provisionally selected for the post of
Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical), Junior Executive (Information
Technology). They also referred to filing of W.P.(C) No. 841/2014
which was disposed of on February 5, 2014 in the light of the directions
in W.P.(C) No. 399/2014 wherein it was directed that the competent
authority to take a decision in the matter with expedition not later than
eight weeks from February 5, 2014. They referred to the filing of
W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014.
20. Rest of the contents of the writ petition being in common to the
writ petitions dealt above, for the sake of brevity, the said facts are not
reiterated. The learned counsel for the parties made a statement on July
25, 2014 that they would rely on the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.
2204/2014. As such no separate counter affidavit has been filed in the
writ petition.
Writ Petition (C) No. 4279/2015
21. This writ petition has been filed by ten (10) petitioners inter-alia
challenging the notification dated March 21, 2014, and seeking a further
direction to issue appointment letters to the petitioners who were
selected for the post of Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil), Junior
Executive (Engineering-Electrical), and Junior Executive (Information
Technology) and for a further direction to fix their seniority from the
date when the appointment letters were issued to the Junior Executive
(Fire Services). It is their case that they had applied for the post of
Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil), Junior Executive (Engineering-
Electrical) and after the process of written examination and interview the
petitioners were declared successful to the posts of Junior Executive
(Engineering-Civil), Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical). They
were waiting impatiently for their appointment letters, till, to their shock
the respondent authority had vide notice published on its website stated
due to administrative reasons, the recruitment process has been put on
hold. Their repeated representations were unsuccessful. They referred
to the W.P.(C) No. 399/2014 filed by similarly placed candidates. They
referred to notification dated March 21, 2014 whereby it was decided to
redo the entire selection process afresh. They referred to W.P.(C) No.
2204/2014 and the order passed by this Court staying the recruitment
process pursuant to advertisement No. 02/2012. They referred to
W.P.(C) No. 4597/2014 challenging the decision of the respondent
authority dated March 21, 2014. It is their case that they came to know
about the W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014 through the petitioners in the said writ
petition in the second week of February 2015. When they made
inquiries from the respondent, they were told that the matter is subjudice
before the Court in W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014 and they would abide by the
decision/direction issued therein which would cover the case of the
petitioners also and the respondent in the meantime has come up with
fresh advertisement No. 02/2015 in respect of 28 posts. They
accordingly, filed a CM No.6385/2015 in W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014
seeking impleadment and appropriate directions claiming to be similarly
situated as the petitioners in the said writ petition. This Court granted
liberty to file separate and independent proceedings and hence the
petition.
22. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. One of the objections
is that the petition is hit by delay and laches. Suffice to state, it is the
stand of the respondent that the challenge to the notification dated March
21, 2014, which the petitioners were aware of in the month of April 2014
is hit by delay and laches. Rest of the contents of the counter affidavit
being similar to the pleadings and the affidavits in W.P(C)
No.2204/2014, for the sake of brevity, are not repeated once again.
Writ Petition (C) No. 8098/2015
23. This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners inter-alia
seeking a direction to the respondent to draw up selection/merit list for
the post they have been found successful for appointment to the post of
Junior Executive (Airport-Operations) in the selection process initiated
by advertisement No.2/2012 and appoint the petitioners to the said post
and for a direction to the respondent to investigate the credentials of the
petitioners on the principles elucidated in Joginder Pal vs. State of
Punjab 2014 6 SCC 644. It is the case of the petitioners that an
advertisement No.02/2012 was issued by the respondent and the
petitioners herein made application to the post of Junior Executive
(Airport-Operations). It is their case that the petitioners who performed
well in the written examination on September 2, 2012 were further
invited for an interview by the respondent and having appeared in the
interview, the respondent has failed to publish the final result to the said
post. The respondent merely published a public notice on its website
keeping the recruitment process relating to the said advertisement at
hold. They referred to the report of the committee constituted by the
Chairman wherein the committee recommended that the candidates who
had appeared in the exam should be asked to take the exam once again.
The petitioners‟ case is that they tried all means possible through
telephonic calls and personal visit to gather when the respondent would
finally declare the result and finish its selection process. The petitioners
referred to the filing of the W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014. They referred to
their academic excellence. They are bona fide candidates who have
cleared the competitive exam conducted by the respondent on their own
merit. The respondent has chosen a patently defective method by
comparing the petitioners against each other instead of comparing them
with all other candidates in a specific centre within Delhi or of all
candidates within the State of Delhi. The petitioner‟s case is, in some
cases where there is no other petitioner to compare with, a petitioner in a
particular question paper set, such petitioner has been compared with an
unsuccessful candidate showing the same number of common wrong
answers defeating the assertion of the respondent. The candidates who
prepared for such competitive exams are trained to eliminate options in
multiple choice style questions and decide between probable two
options. The candidates, thus, are bound to have common wrong
answers while attempting the same subject papers irrespective of the
question paper set as the questions in different sets are almost always the
same and are merely shuffle as a block. The alleged finding of the
respondent that selection from Delhi Centre is disproportionately high
and as such impugns the selection process in the State is untenable as the
respondent failed to appreciate that the number of applicants from Delhi
centre are also disproportionately high. According to the petitioners, the
respondent also failed to note that apart from Allahabad, Delhi is the
only centre in the whole of North India and candidates from the said vast
region would have naturally preferred Delhi as a centre due to better
connectivity and accommodation facilities. According to the petitioners
they apprehend that through the unscientific and incompetent tools of
inquiry, the respondent would term the bona fide petitioners also as
tainted and further may also cancel the entire selection process citing it
as vitiated. They rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Joginder Pal vs. State of Punjab 2014 6 SCC 644.
24. This petition was filed on 20.8.2015 and the same listed before the
Court on 25.8.2015. As counter affidavit was already filed in W.P.(C)
No.2204/2014 and the issue being identical the learned counsel for the
respondent was directed to give copy of the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014 to the learn counsel for the petitioner. I may
only state, here that the learned counsel for the respondent during the
course of submission had raised an issue of delay and laches with regard
to this case as well.
Writ Petition No. 8110/2015
25. This petition has been filed by three petitioners inter-alia seeking a
direction to the respondent to appoint petitioner No.1 & 2 to the post of
Junior Executive (Information Technology) and petitioner No.3 to the
post of Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil) with a further direction to
the respondent to investigate the credentials of the petitioners based on
the principles elucidated in Joginder Pal vs. State of Punjab 2014 6
SCC 644. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the provisional
appointees to the post of Junior Executive (Information Technology) and
Junior Executive (Engineering-Civil) and despite lapse of two years,
they have not been issued any appointment letters. They referred to the
number of vacancies advertised to the said posts. They also referred to
the fact that they appeared in the written exam conducted by the
respondent on August 26, 2012 and having been invited for interview,
they having successfully cleared the interview stage and found to be
suitably selected provisionally to the post, the respondents have failed to
appoint them. They also referred to the decision of the respondent to
keep in abeyance the recruitment process. They also challenged the
unscientific method of inquiry evolved by the respondent to separate the
tainted candidates from the untainted candidates on similar lines as has
been challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 8098/2015
(Prateek Singh and others vs. Airports Authority of India). The said
grounds have already been set out above under the heading W.P.(C)
No.8098/2015 and hence are not repeated again. The respondent has
urged the plea of delay and laches in this case also.
Submissions:-
26. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for writ
petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2204/2014, would draw my attention to
various notings as annexed by the respondent with its counter affidavit to
contend that the investigation by the Directorate Vigilance was with
regard to the recruitment to the post of Junior Executive (Information
Technology) and it was in that regard, files were sent to the Vigilance
Department by the H.R as is clear from the pages 139 to 147 of the paper
book. In other words, it is her case that the recruitment to the post of
Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical) and Junior Executive
(Engineering-Civil) was nowhere an issue. Even otherwise it is her
submission, that the opinion of the committee that the written
examination should be conducted once again is untenable and could not
have given such recommendation/direction without going into the
irregularities. She would also state, the decision of the competent
authority to scrap the entire recruitment process pursuant to
advertisement No.02/2012 and issue fresh advertisement for the
vacancies advertised vide the said advertisement inviting fresh
applications in general and to allow all the candidates who had applied
earlier by giving age relaxation as well as fee relaxation also untenable.
According to her, the reasons given by the respondent for taking decision
dated November 19, 2014 at page 253 of the paper book does not reflect
any wrong doing on the part of the petitioners herein and could not have
affected their selection. She would also draw the attention of this Court
to the affidavit dated January 21, 2015 filed by the respondent and
contest the findings of the Vigilance Directorate to be with regard to
Information Technology and any conclusion therein could not be
considered as irregularity with regard to the other streams. She has
referred to the various paras of the report of the vigilance directorate i.e
paras No. 5.4.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, para 6, para 8 etc. She also contended that
the affidavit filed by the respondent on August 5, 2015 which was
primarily based on inquiry into conduct of the exams more specifically
whether there was any irregularity with respect to the petitioners, she
would state that the conclusion of the respondent against the petitioners
was on an inference rather than on a conclusive proof. She would state,
that it is only when the respondent could separate the „chaff‟ from „grain‟
insofar as the selection of the petitioners, can the respondent deny the
appointment to the petitioners. According to her, the petitioners are
untainted and had qualified by virtue of their merit and not because of
any cheating, fraud etc. She had also challenged the
discrepancy/illegality noticed by the respondent in their investigation
pursuant to the orders of this Court dated January 22, 2015 and May 1,
2015. She also states, the finding of the Vigilance Directorate on
procedural irregularity of the Hall tickets could not be downloaded,
cannot be imputed, to the agency, as the same were sent to the candidates
by the H.R. department of the respondent. Similarly, the syllabus of the
written examination was to be prescribed by the respondent and not the
agency. She also states, the invigilation was done by the respondent and
even if a casual report was given by the observers of respondent then the
agency cannot be blamed. She states, the primary ground, that the
selected candidates were from the Delhi Centre especially from a
particular State, cannot be a ground to justify the cancellation, as the
Delhi centre consists of 11 States of North India having big coaching
centres, it is but natural that the applications were more as compared to
the other centres and accordingly the success rate was more in the
written examination, so also in the interview and final result. She casts a
doubt on the inquiry conducted by the vigilance directorate in the
absence of the answer sheets. She also states instances of Naveen and
Manu Yadav given by the respondent shows non application of mind
inasmuch as, Naveen appeared in Electrical exam and not in Airport
Operations. Similarly, Manu Yadav appeared in I.T and not in Airport
Operations. She has placed before me, the communications evidencing
the same. She states, everything was in the realm of suspicion and
nothing more, which would not justify cancellation.
27. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4597/2014 would also submit that there is no
evidence with the respondents to show any wrong doing on the part of
the petitioners. The impugned action of the respondent has caused grave
prejudice to the service career and future prospects of the petitioners.
The impugned action breeds, frustration in the petitioners and many of
them have crossed the maximum age limit. He states that in view of the
settled position of law that the respondents in a case of this nature need
to separate the grain & chaff, and having not done that, cannot take any
action against the petitioners as the same would be violative of Article
14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 4279/2015 and 6129/2015, makes similar
submissions as made by Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Rahul Sharma. He
states, there is no factual foundation about the irregularities having been
committed by the petitioners. He also state, there is no evidence
showing any connivance between the recruiting agency and the
petitioners herein.
29. Mr.Manoj V. George, learned counsel appearing in two petitions,
would submit that the petitioners are highly qualified, in one case he is
First Class B.Tech with M.B.A. They are 27 years of age and having a
whole carrier before them and such serious charges have a demoralising
effect on them. He would also state, that persons from Madras,
Telangana, Delhi and U.P have also been selected, which clearly
demonstrates that the plea of the respondents that the maximum number
of people selected being from Delhi region that too all the candidates
who are from Haryana or acquired the qualification from Haryana, is
totally baseless allegation. Merely because the maximum number of
candidates are from Haryana or having acquired qualification from
Haryana, would not reveal that the examination process is marred by
irregularities on the part of the candidates or on the part of the agency.
He states, that Delhi is a big region with many centres. It is not a case
where the selection has been effected only through one singular process
but is through a three tier process, where the irregularities cannot be
committed. Even the show-cause notices, which were issued, have been
replied to. He would contest the plea of delay, taken by learned counsel
for the respondents by relying upon the judgment of the Kerala High
Court in the case of Antony, P.A. and Ors vs. Krishnadas, M.N. and
Ors. He would seek the dismissal of the writ petition. The learned
counsel for the petitioners together rely on the following judgments in
support of this submissions:-
(i) Joginder Pal and Others v State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6
Supreme Court Cases 644
(ii) Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and
Another (2003) 7 SCC 285
(iii) Shakti Savan Tripathi and ors vs. Airports Authority of India 173
(2010) DLT 444
(iv) Naushad Anwar and ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors 2014
(11) SCC 203
(v) Manoj Manu and Anr. Vs. Union of India and ors 2013 (12) SCC
(vi) Eastern Coast Railway and another (connected appeal) vs.
Mahadev Appa Rao and ors 2010 (7) SCC 678
(vii) Kiran Juneja and ors vs. Union of India and ors W.P.(C) Nos.
12130-39/2004 and connected writ petitions decided on 20.12.2007
(viii) Girjesh Shrivastava and ors vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors
2010 (10) SCC 707
(ix) Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and ors vs. State of Punjab and ors JT
2006 (5) SC 352
(x) Neeraj Chaurasia and ors vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
Ltd 2013 (1) ALJ 599
(xi) Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhatisgarh AIR 2013 SC 3414
(xii) Union of India and ors vs. Kuldeep Kumar W.P.(C) No.
6505/2013 (connected matters) decided on 30.7.2014.
30. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor
General, has taken me through the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent with regard to the number of posts advertised and the process
evolved for making selection. He would state, when the list of
successful candidates for the post of Junior Executive (Information
Technology) was submitted by the H.R cell to the Chairman for
approval, the Chairman got suspicious as to why most of the candidates
i.e 80% approximately were selected from Delhi/Haryana and hence
informed the Vigilance Directorate which carried out the investigation.
The Vigilance Directorate made detailed investigation with respect to the
examination conducted to the post of Junior Executive (Information
Technology) and submitted their initial finding indicating various
irregularities observed by them. It is his submission that the
irregularities observed by the Directorate are not only discrepancy
related to procedural and monitoring but are related to criminal
misconduct for manipulating the written examination. The Directorate
also recommended that there is no requirement to wait for consolidated
report for all other disciplines/cadres which were advertised. The
findings of one discipline constitutes sufficient ground for sending the
whole matter to the CBI. He would state that the CBI had not taken up
the case which was of the view that the matter must be looked into by the
Crime Branch, Delhi Police. According to him, the Crime Branch is
investigating the whole case. He would submit, that if the recruitment
process is flawed then the petitioners should not get advantage of the
same. According to him, the recruitment process was outsourced to a
private organization and the investigation carried out by the Vigilance
Directorate and the subsequent inquiry carried out in terms of the order
of this Court, prima facie it appears the process has been manipulated as
it is noted that those candidates who appeared in Delhi have been
successful. He would draw my attention to affidavit dated January 21,
2015 to contend that the total number of applicants is the highest in
Delhi, the candidates appeared in the written test was 49.94% and the
presence of the candidates in first hundred as per written test was 94%
and the total number of candidates called for interview was 78.11% in
Junior Executive (Airport-Operations). He would also state, similar is
the position in other streams inasmuch as in Junior Executive
(Engineering-Civil), the total number of applicants from Delhi were
33.9%; candidates appeared in the written test were 43.67%, presence of
candidates in first hundred as per written test was 73% and number of
candidates called for interview were 79.45%. He has made reference to
the preliminary report of the Vigilance Directorate and had taken me
through the same from page 377 onwards and drew my attention to the
conclusion of the Vigilance Directorate. He would state, that the
conclusion arrived at by the Vigilance Directorate is a possibility and the
respondent corporation is taking action. There is a cogent material for the
respondent to take a decision. The exam conducted could not be trusted
at all. He also stated the manner in which the agency was appointed by
the H.R bypassing the procedure and it is the requirement of public
interest that recruitment to the public authority, which is performing the
critical function should be on merit. He states that none of the
petitioners have been debarred from applying fresh recruitment process.
There is no mala fide in the impugned action. The principle of grain and
chaff can be invoked if it is possible. There is no stigma attached to any
of the petitioners. The test of reasonableness has been met. He would
rely upon the following judgments:-
1. Sharkarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3
SCC 47
2. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Pandey
and Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 663
3. East Coast Railways Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and
Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 678
4. Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh
and Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 154
5. Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 5 SCC
6. State of A.P. and Ors. Vs. D.Dastagiri and Ors.,
(2003) 5 SCC 373
7. The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas
Chandra Sinha and Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 648
8. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarun K. Singh and
Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 786
9. Jitendra Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and
Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 161
10. Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board
and Anr. Vs. K. Shayam Kumar and Ors., (2010) 6 SCC
11. Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab and Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 356
31. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel, in her rejoinder would
state that the preliminary report was submitted after this Court had
passed an order on May 1, 2015. According to her, para 7 and 8 of the
additional affidavit, filed by the respondents on August 5, 2015, wherein
a reference was made to the answering pattern is totally baseless. The
pattern does not signify any wrong doing on the part of the
petitioners/the successful candidates. The roll number of the successful
candidates was not close to each other to even presume, they have
copied. That apart, the attempt of the respondents to correlate the
common wrong answers of the successful candidates is misconceived
and overlooking the number of wrong answers which varies. In other
words, it is a coincidence that there are some questions (not all) whereby
answers were common. The candidates made an attempt as there was no
negative marking. She states, some of the petitioners have not attempted
several questions as compared to some, who attempted some questions.
She also discount any wrong doing on the part of the petitioners as
during the written examination, the invigilation was done by the Airports
Authority of India. Even the examination/hall tickets were sent by the
Airports Authority of India to the candidates. In other words, the agency
had no role to play for sending the hall tickets or invigilations. If the
candidates had not downloaded the hall tickets, the agency was not at
fault. In fact, she raised doubt on the comparison of the answer sheets of
the candidates by stating, a show cause notice was issued to the agency
for destroying the same. According to her, everything is suspicious to
the respondents.
32. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, an issue of delay was raised by Mr. Sanjay Jain, Learned
ASG in W.P.(C) No.6129/2015 and 4279/2015, so also in W.P.(C)
No.8098/2015 and 8110/2015. In that regard, the plea taken by the
respondents in support of point of delay is as under:-
"2. That the Airports Authority of India issued a notice
on its website on 21.03.2014 and which was also
published in leading newspapers on 24.03.2014 inviting
attention of the candidates who had appeared in the
written examination pursuant to advertisement No.
02/2012 for the post of Manager / Junior Executive of
various disciplines except Junior Executive (Fire
Services) that it has been decided to re-do the entire
selection process afresh for the above posts except Junior
Executive (Fire Services) due to administrative reasons
and also that the notified terms and conditions in the
advertisement No. 02/2012 will remain same and the
candidates who earlier appeared in the examination and
subsequent process are required to appear again in the
re-examination to be conducted and further that the date
of written examination will be notified in due course of
time on AAI's website.
3. That a writ petition bearing No. 2204 of 2014 titled
Mohit Panwar & Others Versus Airports Authority of
India was filed and listed before the Court on 02.04.2014
whereby similar relief as sought in the instant petition
was sought by the Petitioners therein and by order dated
02.04.2014, this Hon'ble Court while issuing notice in the
said petition directed the Respondent therein i.e. Airports
Authority of India to approach this Hon'ble Court before
a firm date for fresh examination is, publicized. That
thereafter another writ petition being W.P (C) No. 4597
of 2014 titled Abhay Sharma and Others Versus Airports
Authority of India was filed and listed before this Hon'ble
Court on 24.07.2014, on which date this Hon'ble Court
was informed regarding the pendency of W.P.(C). No.
2204 of 2014 and also that pleadings in the said writ
petition are complete. This Hon'ble Court vide the said
order directed that W.P. (C) No. 4597 of 2014 be placed
for hearing along with W.P. (C) No. 2204 of 2014.
5. That vide order dated 25.07.2014 in W.P. (C) No.
4597 of 2014, Counsel for the parties stated that they
shall rely on the pleadings in W.P. (C) No. 2204 of
2014 for the purpose of addressing arguments as
pleadings were complete in W.P. (C) No. 2204 of
2014.
6. That thereafter arguments commenced in W.P. (C)
No. 2204 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 4597 of 2014 on
25.07.2014 which continued till 17.12.2014 and was to
conclude on the said day, however, on 17.12.2014, the
Lawyers abstained from work and the Petition was
adjourned to 08.01.2015. In January, 2015, there was
a change in the Roster Bench and the said petition
was listed before another Hon'ble Judge of this
Hon'ble Court. Even before the said Court the matter
was argued since January, 2015 itself.
7. The petitioners herein were fully aware regarding
the notification dated 21.03.2014, however, instead of
approaching this Hon'ble Court the said Petitioners
were fence sitting and awaiting the outcome of W.P.(C)
No. 2204 of 2014, when much water had already flown
inasmuch as vide order dated 22.01.2015, this Hon'ble
Court directed that the Airports Authority of India can
continue with fresh selection process for appointment
to other posts than to which the Petitioners are
contenders.
8. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa
Versus Mamata Mohanty reported as (2011) 3 SCC
436 has clearly held that section 3 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, makes its obligatory on the part of the
Court to dismiss the suit or appeal if made after the
prescribed period even though the limitation is not set
up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue
of limitation even at the Appellate stage because in
some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter".
33. The pleadings as made by the respondent aforesaid would only
reveal that the petitioners could have approached the Court earlier and
despite the knowledge, having not filed the petition at the appropriate
point of time, the petition must be dismissed. The reliance placed by Mr.
Jain on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa
and another vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 wherein the facts
were that the respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Niali College on
9.7.1979 and her appointment as such was approved by the Director of
Higher Education, Orissa and was granted the benefit of receiving 1/3rd
grant-in-aid. Notification dated 6.10.1989 was issued for revising the
pay scale with effect from January 1, 1986. The said notification was
applicable only in such cases where post has been granted the benefit of
grant-in-aid scheme by 1.4.1989. The respondent did not make any
representation before any authority to get the benefit of the said
notification dated 6.10.1989. Rather, approached the High Court on
11.11.2005 by filing Writ Petition No.14157/2005 seeking a direction to
the State Government to pay the pre revised pay scale with effect from
January 1, 1986 placing reliance on the various orders of the High Court.
The State of Orissa contested the writ petition. The High Court placing
reliance on the earlier judgment allowed the writ petition giving the
benefit of the pay scale to her with effect from 1.6.1984. The High
Court has held in para 53 and 54 as under:-
"53. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not
apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of
limitation being based on public policy, the principles
enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are
dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and
laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay
scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. In such
an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to
grant relief for the initial period in case of an
unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the
respondent claimed the relief from 1.1.1986 by filing a
petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for some
unexplained reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1.6.1984,
though even the Notification dated 6.10.1989 makes it
applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention
that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay
and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court
after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in
a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper
explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake
up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the
judgment in cases where some diligent person had
approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See:
M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., AIR
1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M.
Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal &
Ors.v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366)."
34. Insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. George on the judgment of
the Kerala High Court in the case of Antony P.A. and Ors vs.
Krishnadas, M.N. and Ors is concerned, the High Court has in para 21
and 22 has stated as under:-
"21. First of all, we will deal with the delay aspects
pointed out against the writ Petitions filed in the year
2003. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the
writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26486/2003 that though he
contested for the selection, he was not fortunate to be
included in the select list. He came to know about the
discrepancies in the selection when he came across with
the affidavit filed on 1.1.2003 in O.P. No.18462/2000
with regard to the assigning of marks for additional
qualification. Thereupon he attempted to get the details
of the marks awarded to him from the University; but was
not successful. It was int he above circumstances the writ
Petition was happened to be filed in August, 2003
impugning the selection process, whereby he had been
excluded without giving additional marks and on the
ground of less service left. Therefore, there was no delay.
22. Of course, as pointed out by the Appellants, in the
decision reported in Roshan Lal and Ors v. International
Airport Authority of India and Ors. 1980 (supp.) S.C.C
449, even two years delay in challenging the appointment
had been found to be detrimental to the Petitioners. But
when one incumbent has explained, to the possible extent,
the reason for the delay in cases arising violation of the
guaranteed rights under Article 16 of the Constitution,
such explanation when found acceptable to a reasonable
mind shall have to be considered, in the over all
circumstances of the case. One important circumstance
is that challenging the very same selection process and
impugning the notification at the threshold, there had
been at least two Writ Petitions filed in time. The person
selected had already been thus facing the challenge
against their selection at least in two Writ Petitions filed
in time. In such circumstances, when another incumbent,
with some more details, has come with an equal
challenge offering explanation for delay, necessarily, as
the matter involves the violation and infraction of the
right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, the
delay can be excused to entertain such writ Petitions.
Therefore, the contention regarding delay is of no avail
for the writ Appellants when they themselves were facing
challenge against their appointments at least in two Writ
Petitions filed in time. No special or added prejudice is,
in any way, caused to them."
35. In the case in hand also, there is no denial to the fact that W.P.(C)
Nos.2204/2014, 4597/2014 have been filed in this Court challenging the
notification dated March 21, 2014. Even in the relevant paragraphs of
the counter-affidavit, which have been referred to above, the respondents
referred to the pendency of the W.P.(C) No.2204/2014 and the said
petition is part of the batch of the writ petitions, which are being decided
by this order. Noting the fact that the writ petition has not been decided
and also the similarity of the facts of the case in hand with the facts in
the judgment of the High Court, the reasons given by the petitioners in
the petition, which gives a plausible explanation for the delay in
approaching the Court, this Court is of the view that the delay and laches
would not come in the way for a decision on the merit of issue raised.
36. On merits, the challenge in this batch of petitions is to the
notification dated March 21, 2014 whereby it was decided to redo the
entire selection process afresh for the post of Manager/Junior Executive
for the candidates who had earlier appeared in the examination in terms
of advertisement No. 02/2012. During the pendency of the writ
petitions, the respondent had reviewed the impugned decision on
November 19, 2014 whereby it was decided to scrap the entire
recruitment process pursuant to advertisement No.02/2012 and issued
fresh advertisement for the vacancies advertised vide the said
advertisement inviting fresh applications in general and to allow all the
candidates who had applied earlier by giving age relaxation as well as
fee relaxation. Even though the decision has not been challenged as the
challenge in these petitions is to the notification dated March 21, 2014, I
deem it appropriate to consider the substantive prayer made in the
petition that too for a direction to the respondent to issue appointment
letters to the petitioners who were found suitable and selected
provisionally for the post of Junior Executive.
37. Before I embark to consider the submissions as made by the
learned counsel for the parties, a word on the orders passed by this Court
time to time in these petitions specifically in the lead case W.P.(C) No.
2204/2014. On April 2, 2014 when the writ petition was listed for the
first time, this court noting that fresh examination is confined only to
those who appeared in the examination held earlier directed the
respondents to approach the Court before a firm date for the fresh
examination is finalised. On January 22, 2015, this Court, on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that with
regard to 500 odd other posts, than to which the petitioners are
contenders, respondents can continue the fresh selection process for
appointment but with regard to the petitioners, the respondents should
examine the issue of "grain and chaff" i.e whether any irregularities can
be shown so far as the selection process of the petitioners is concerned,
only in such circumstance, the petitioners would not have any right
either for appointment or for drawing of a select list/merit list.
38. On May 1, 2015, this Court had passed the following order:-
"2. The aforesaid orders were passed in the light of the
ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Joginder Pal and Others v State of Punjab and Others,
(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 644 and which ratio is
contained in paragraphs 10 to 10.5 of the judgment which
read as under:-
"10. From the reading of the judgment in Inderpreet Singh
Kahlon case one can discern the following principles: 10.1
An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India would be void. It would be a
nullity. Since the services of the appellants were
terminated not in terms of the Rules but in view of the
commission of illegality in the selection process involved,
the applicability of the relevant provisions of the statutes
as also the effect of the provisions of the Article 311 of the
Constitution need not be considered.
10.2. Before a finding that an appointment has been made
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can
be arrived at, the appointing authority must take into
consideration the foundational facts. Only when such
foundational facts are established, can the legal principles
be applied. When the services of employees are terminated
inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and
abetted corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity
in governance or in public interest their services should be
terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions
therefor exist. The court while setting aside a selection
may require the State to establish that the process was so
tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be
cancelled. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which
requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the
misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious
candidates should also suffer.
10.3. A distinction exists between a proven case of mass
cheating for a board examination and an unproven
imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a
civil servant is involved. Only in the event it is found to be
impossible or highly improbable that the tainted cases can
be separated from the non-tainted cases could en masse
orders of termination be issued. Both the State
Government as also the High Court in that view of the
matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the
tainted from the no-tainted candidates.
10.4. Cases which may arise where the selection process is
perceived to be tainted may be categorised in the following
manner:
(i) Cases where the "event" has been investigated.
(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was
completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded.
(iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointment
was not made.
(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and
the appointments were found to be contrary to law or
rules.
If the services of appointees who had put in a few years of
service were terminated, compliance with three principles
at the hands of the State was imperative viz. (1) to
establish satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the
materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its
satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) to
determine the question that the illegalities committed went
to the root of the matter, which vitiated the entire selection
process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of
materials were required to be gathered by reason of a
thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner;
(3) whether the sufficient material present enabled the
State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority
had been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the
system itself was corrupt.
10.5. Once the necessary factual findings as enumerated
above are arrived at, or it is found impossible or highly
improbable to separate tainted from untainted cases, all
appointments traceable to the officers concerned could be
cancelled. But admittedly, in the present case, although
there had been serious imputations against Ravinderpal
Singh Sidhu being at the helm of the affairs of the State
Public Service Commission, all decisions made by the
Commission during his tenure are yet to be set aside."
(Underlining added)
3. In law, therefore, either it is possible to separate tainted
from the untainted candidates or it is not possible to
separate them because of the type of infraction and
resultantly the entire process may have to be scrapped. If,
however, it is very much possible to separate the grain
from the chaff i.eseparation of tainted candidates from the
untainted candidates in a selection process which is not
wholly vitiated, the selection process as a whole as per the
case of Joginder Pal Singh (supra) cannot be scrapped.
4. Today, the learned ASG appeared, and who is
appearing for the first time, and after some arguments
were heard, the position arising is that all that is being
asked from the AAI/respondent is that it is bound to
conduct an investigation as per the resources available
with it with respect to the petitioners/candidates, the
centres in which they appeared, the results of those
centres, the answers given by the petitioners and other
candidates of those centres and every other material
aspect which is possible to be investigated in order to
know whether at all there can be a separation of the
tainted from the untainted candidates and whether
therefore petitioners are untainted candidates who must
get selection?
5. Of course, if the malaise is such that it is not possible to
separate the tainted candidates from the untainted
candidates, then obviously, may be a conclusion can be
arrived at with respect to cancelling of the entire selection
process, however, assumptions and presumptions can
never be the answer when the issue is of an alleged taint of
specific candidates i.e specific nature of the issue as to
whether the candidates such as the petitioners are tainted
or they are untainted and also the fact that the entire
selection process cannot be found to be vitiated for its
cancellation as a whole.
6. Accordingly, learned ASG on instructions states that
AAI/respondent will endeavour to conduct a specific
inquiry and investigation as to whether there can be
separation of the tainted from the untainted candidates in
the facts of the present case with regard to the subject
examination conducted with respect to the posts of Junior
Executive (Engineer-Electrical) and Junior Executive
(Engineer-Civil) and Junior Engineer (Information
Technology), 2012 Examination."
39. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent had carried out the
exercise and filed a report by way of an additional affidavit. Suffice to
state, regrettably the petitioners have not chosen to file a response to
such an important affidavit. Even though the order dated May 1, 2015
refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Pal and others
vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 6 SCC 644, for a better
perspective that too on the basis of the judgments referred to, by the
counsel for the parties, the position of law in matters of this nature as
enunciated by the Supreme Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and
others vs. State of Punjab and ors (2006) 11 SCC 356, is well settled,
wherein the Supreme Court had referred to its earlier judgments, and in
paras 46 to 59 has noted as under:-
46. A distinction moreoever exists between a proven
case of mass cheating for a board examination and an
unproven imputed charge of corruption where the
appointment of a civil servant is involved.
47. In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash
Chandra Sinha and Others [(1970) 1 SCC 648], the court
came to a finding that the high percentage of marks
obtained by the candidates who appeared at the selection
of the centre in question did give rise to a suspicion that
unfair means had been practised and the Board was
justified in investigating the case. While the High Court
held that despite the same, the principles of natural
justice was required to be complied with; this Court
noticed the reports of the experts and came to the
conclusion that the results thereof speaks for themselves.
It was noticed that whereas in other centers the average
of successful candidates was 50%, in the center in
question, the percentage of passing in different papers
were unusually high ranging from 70% to 100%. In that
view of the matter, this Court held:
"12. These figures speak for themselves. However, to
satisfy ourselves we ordered that some answer books be
brought for our inspection and many such were
produced. A comparison of the answer books showed
such a remarkable agreement in the answers that no
doubt was left in our minds that the students had
assistance from an outside source. Therefore the
conclusion that unfair means were adopted stands
completely vindicated.
13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is
being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the
conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of
them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of
charging any one individually with unfair means but to
condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it
was held. Must the Board give an opportunity to all the
candidates to represent their cases? We think not. It was
not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the
candidates if the examinations as a whole were being
cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with
unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself.
The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means
on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be
wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed
inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case
to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted
unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go."
Such is not the case here.
48. In Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public Service
Commission, Allahabad and Others [1990 (Supp) SCC
692], an error was found out at the stage of calling
candidates for interview. This Court opined that as no
defect was pointed out in regard to the written
examination and the sole objection was confined to the
exclusion of a group of successful candidates in interview
there was no justification for cancelling the written part
of the recruitment examination and the situation could
have been appropriately met by setting aside the
recruitment and asking for fresh interview of all eligible
candidates on the basis of the written examination.
49. Yet again in S.P. Biswas and Others v. State Bank of
India [1991 Supp (2) SCC 354], the court refused to
interfere with the result of the examination as it was
shown that there had been neither any mass copying nor
the final result was shown to have been influenced by the
unfair means by any candidate.
50. In those cases also tainted cases were separated from
the non-tainted cases. Only, thus, in the event it is found
to be an impossible or highly improbable, en masse
orders of termination could have been issued.
51. Both the State Government as also the High Court in
that view of the matter should have made all endeavours
to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates.
52. We may, at this stage, notice that the following cases
would fall in the different categories which are
enumerated hereinbelow:
(i) Cases where the 'event' has been investigated:
(a) Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh,
(1993) 1 SCC 154 at paragraphs 3 and 7.
(b) Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165
at paragraphs 12, 15 and 22.
(c) Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, (1994) 5
SCC 663 at paragraph 4.
(d) Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC
742 at paragraph 4.
(e) Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146
at paragraph 9.
(f) B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 533 at
paragraph 4.
(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was
completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded:
(a) O. Chakradhar (supra)
(b) Krishan Yadav (supra)
(c) Hanuman Prasad (supra)
(iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointment
was not made:
(a) Dilbagh Singh (supra) at paragraph 3
(b) Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994) 5 SCC 695
(c) Anand Kumar Pandey (supra) at paragraph 4.
(d) Hanuman Prasad (supra)
(e) B. Ramanjini (supra) at paragraph 4.
(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and
the appointments were found to be contrary to law or
rules:
(a) Krishan Yadav (supra)
(b) Pramod Lahudas v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10
SCC 749 wherein appointments had been made without
following the selection procedure.
(c) O. Chakradhar (supra) wherein appointments had
been made without type-writing tests and other
procedures of selection having not been followed.
53. It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority
for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced
therefrom. It is also well settled that a ratio of case must
be understood having regard to the fact situation
obtaining therein. [See P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By LRs. v.
Andhra Bank Ltd. and Others (2004) 11 SCC 672] M.P.
Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2005) 11 SCC
45 and Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v.
Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91].
54. In Benny T.D. and Others v. Registrar of Cooperative
Societies and Another [(1998) 5 SCC 269], this Court
repelled a contention raised therein that in view of the
findings of the Public Inquiry Commission that there has
been tampering of marks in respect of several candidates
and as such there has been no fair and objective
selection, public interest demanded annulment of the
entire selection. This Court held that the same could not
be done as the same would tantamount to gross violation
of principles of natural justice which cannot be brushed
aside on the ground that public interest demands
annulment of the selection.
55. Yet again in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Others v. Union of
India and Another[(2003) 2 SCC 673], this Court while
dealing with a case of en masse cancellation of the
licences granted to the LPG Distributors as a result
whereof unequals were said to have been clubbed by
reason of arbitrary exercise of executive power, the same
was held to be impermissible stating:
"45. The solution by resorting to cancellation of all was
worse than the problem. Cure was worse than the
disease. Equal treatment to unequals is nothing but
inequality. To put both the categories - tainted and the
rest -on a par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary,
unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution"
It was further held:
"46. The aforesaid observations would apply with equal if
not more force to DSBs if media exposure that the
allotments were made either to the high political
functionaries themselves or their near and dear ones is
correct, the authorities would not only be justified in
examining such cases but it would be their duty to do so.
Instead of fulfilling that duty and obligation, the executive
cannot unjustly resort to cancellation of all the allotments
en masse by treating unequals as equals without even
prima facie examining any cases exposed by the media "
This Court further observed:
"35. The expression "public interest" or "probity in
governance" cannot be put in a straitjacket. "Public
interest" takes into its fold several factors. There cannot
be any hard-and-fast rule to determine what is public
interest. The circumstances in each case would determine
whether government action was taken in public interest
or was taken to uphold probity in governance.
36. The role model for governance and decision taken
thereof should manifest equity, fair play and justice. The
cardinal principle of governance in a civilized society
based on rule of law not only has to base on transparency
but must create an impression that the decision-making
was motivated on the consideration of probity. The
Government has to rise above the nexus of vested
interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The
act of governance has to withstand the test of
judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or
capricious actions. Therefore, the principle of
governance has to be tested on the touchstone of justice,
equity and fair play and if the decision is not based on
justice, equity and fair play and has taken into
consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the
decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the
reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular
accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate."
56. Yet again in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh
P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another [(2003) 7 SCC 285],
this Court observed:
"Applying a 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-by to contextual considerations throwing to
the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther
than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the
situation. In short, the competent authority completely
misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and
unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections,
wholly unwarranted and 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."
57. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to be right
in applying the principle of mass cheating cases in the
instant case.
58. Contention of Mr. Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore,
centers around condemnation of selection and not of the
candidate. But, when the services of the employees are
terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have
aided and abated corruption and, thus, either for the sake
of probity in governance or in public interest their
services should be terminated; the court must satisfy itself
that conditions therefore exist. The court while setting
aside a selection may require the State to establish that
the process was so tainted that the entire selection
process is liable to be cancelled. We, however, do not
agree with the submission of Mr. Dhavan that the
decision of the Commission was collegiate in nature as it
is well known that one of the members of the Commission
was biased, other members could also be influenced by
him. [See Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 722]
59. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which
requires serious consideration is as to whether due to
misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious
candidates should also suffer."
40. In East Coast Railway and another (supra), the Supreme Court
dealing with a case relating to recruitment to the post of Chief Typist,
wherein the Administration cancelled the typing test and fixed a even
date for fresh typing test. The Tribunal justified the cancellation and
issuance of a notification for a fresh test. The High Court in the appeal,
set aside the order of the Tribunal, in a writ petition by those candidates
who were successful in the first test. The High Court directed the
petitioner to proceed with the selection process. The Supreme Court
referring to its earlier judgments has held as under:-
"14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate
acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he
has appeared in the examination or even found a place in
the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified
prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary
fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as
reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the
selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to
make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond
judicial review before a competent Writ court. If any such
decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate
directions can be issued in the matter.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
"28. That is not, however, the position in the instant
case. The order of cancellation passed by the competent
authority was not preceded even by a prima facie
satisfaction about the correctness of the allegations made
by the unsuccessful candidates leave alone an inquiry into
the same. The minimum that was expected of the authority
was a due and proper application of mind to the
allegations made before it and formulation and recording
of reasons in support of the view that the competent
authority was taking.
29. There may be cases where an enquiry may be called
for into the allegations, but there may also be cases, where
even on admitted facts or facts verified from record or an
enquiry howsoever summary the same maybe, it is possible
for the competent authority to take a decision, that there
are good reasons for making the order which the authority
eventually makes. But we find it difficult to sustain an
order that is neither based on an enquiry nor even a prima
facie view taken upon a due and proper application of
mind to the relevant facts. Judged by that standard the
order of cancellation passed by the competent authority
falls short of the legal requirements and was rightly
quashed by the High Court.
30. We may hasten to add that while application of mind to
the material available to the competent authority is an
essential pre-requisite for the making of a valid order, that
requirement should not be confused with the sufficiency of
such material to support any such order. Whether or not
the material placed before the competent authority was in
the instant case sufficient to justify the decision taken by it,
is not in issue before us. That aspect may have assumed
importance only if the competent authority was shown to
have applied its mind to whatever material was available
to it before cancelling the examination. Since application
of mind as a thresh-hold requirement for a valid order is
conspicuous by its absence the question whether the
decision was reasonable having regard to the material
before the authority is rendered academic. Sufficiency or
otherwise of the material and so also its admissibility to
support a decision the validity whereof is being judicially
reviewed may even otherwise depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be
formulated in that regard nor do we propose to do so in
this case.
31. So also whether the competent authority ought to have
conducted an enquiry into or verification of the allegations
before passing an order of cancellation is a matter that
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. It may often depend upon the nature, source and
credibility of the material placed before the authority. It
may also depend upon whether any such exercise is
feasible having regard to the nature of the controversy, the
constraints of time, effort and expense. But what is
absolutely essential is that the authority making the order
is alive to the material on the basis of which it purports to
take a decision. It cannot act mechanically or under an
impulse, for a writ court judicially reviewing any such
order cannot countenance the exercise of power vested in
a public authority except after due and proper application
of mind. Any other view would amount to condoning a
fraud upon such power which the authority exercising the
same holds in trust only to be exercised for a legitimate
purpose and along settled principles of administrative law.
32. The next question then is whether the selection should
be finalized on the basis of the test held earlier or the
matter allowed to be re-examined by the authority in the
context of the representation received by it. In our opinion
the latter course would be more in tune with the demands
of justice and fairness especially when a second test has
been conducted in which all the in service candidates have
appeared. The result of this examination/test has not,
however, been declared so far apparently because of the
pendency of these proceedings.
33. If upon due and proper consideration of the
representation received from the candidates who were
unsuccessful in the first examination, the competent
authority comes to the conclusion that the test earlier held
suffered from any infirmity or did not give a fair
opportunity to all the candidates, it shall be free to pass a
fresh order cancelling the said examination after
recording such a finding in which event the second test
conducted under the directions of the Tribunal would
become the basis for the selection process to be finalized in
accordance with law. In case, however, the authority
comes to the conclusion that the earlier test suffered from
no procedural or other infirmity or did not cause any
prejudice to any candidate, the second test/examination
shall stand cancelled and the process of selection finalized
on the basis of the test held earlier."
41. Similarly, in Joginder Pal and others (supra), the Supreme Court
after referring to its judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon case (supra),
which has been reproduced above, has in paras 39 and 40 has held as
under:-
"39. It becomes crystal clear that the concern of the Court
was that for the misdeeds of some candidates, honest and
meritorious candidates should not suffer. Therefore,
endeavour should be made to segregate the tainted
candidates from those who were without any stigma and
had been selected because of their sheer merit and not on
account of any illegal considerations. We would also like
to reproduce some of the parts of the concurring judgment
authored by Justice Dalveer Bhandari (as His Lordship
then was) with the aforesaid message, eloquently and
impeccably:
118. Undoubtedly, in the selection process, there have
been manipulations and irregularities at the behest of R.S.
Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab Public Service
Commission. On careful scrutiny of the facts and
circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the
High Court ought to have made a serious endeavour to
segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates.
Though the task was certainly difficult, but by no stretch of
imagination, it was not an impossible task.
xxx
124. The High Court has not considered the case in the
proper perspective. The consequences of en masse
cancellation would carry a big stigma particularly on
cancellation of the selections which took place because of
serious charges of corruption. The question arises whether
for the misdeeds of some candidates, honest and good
candidates should also suffer on en masse cancellation
leading to termination of their services? Should those
honest candidates be compelled to suffer without there
being any fault on their part just because the Respondents
find it difficult to segregate the cases of tainted candidates
from the other candidates? The task may be difficult for the
Respondents, but in my considered view, in the interest of
all concerned and particularly in the interest of honest
candidates, the State must undertake this task. The
unscrupulous candidates should not be allowed to damage
the entire system in such a manner where innocent people
also suffer great ignominy and stigma.
125. This Court had an occasion to examine a similar
controversy in the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj's case (supra).
In that case, there were serious allegations of political
patronage in allotment of retail outlets of petroleum
products, (LPG distributorships and SKO-LDO
dealerships). This Court laid down that how could a large
number of candidates against whom there was not even
insinuation be clubbed with handful of those who were
said to have been allotted dealerships/distributorships on
account of political connection and patronage? This Court
clearly stated that the two were clearly unequals. Equal
treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. This is the
most important principle which has been laid down in this
case by this Court. The Court further observed that to put
both the categories, tainted and the rest, on par is wholly
unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. In somewhat similar
circumstances, in this case, the Government, instead of
discharging its obligation, unjustly resorted to the
cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating
unequals as equals without even prima facie examining
their cases. Those officers whose services were affected
because of en masse cancellation have not been given an
opportunity to represent before the concerned authorities.
In the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj there were 413 cases and
the task was indeed difficult to segregate the cases of
political connection and patronage with other cases. But,
even then, this Court while, setting aside the order of the
Government cancelling the allotment, appointed a
Committee of two retired Judges, one of this Court and
another from the Delhi High Court, and they were
requested to examine all 413 cases and decide the matter
after getting the report from that Committee appointed by
the Court.
40. In view of the above, the issue of entire selection
process having been vitiated would have arisen only if the
findings of the Committee were that it was not possible to
distinguish the cases of tainted from the non-tainted ones
and there was a possibility that all of them would have got
the benefit of wrong doings of Mr. Sidhu and his
accomplices. Fortunately for these Appellants, it is not so
as they have been found innocent. The Appellants get
ensconced, earning a safe place, once they are removed
from the category of nefarious persons. Though the tainted
candidates have rightly received their comeuppance, but
the innocent persons cannot be punished with them. Thus,
it is difficult to accept the fallibility conclusion of the High
Court."
42. From a reading of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, the
following position emerges:
(1) A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating and
an unproven charge of corruption.
(2) When a high percentage of marks obtained by the candidates who
appeared in the selection in a centre in question did give rise to a
suspicion that unfair means had been practiced.
(3) If the examination has been vitiated by adoption of unfair means
on a mass a scale, it would be wrong to insist that a detailed
enquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy
itself, which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means.
(4) Where there is no mass copying nor the final result was shown to
have been influenced by the unfair means by any candidate, such
result should not be interfered with.
(5) Efforts must be made to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted
candidates but it is only in the event if it is found to be
impossible or highly improbable, en masse orders of
termination/cancellation could be issued.
(6) To put both the categories of tainted and non-tainted on par is
wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(7) The Court while setting aside the selection process, may require
the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire
selection process is liable to be cancelled.
(8) No candidate acquire an indefeasible right to a post merely
because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place
in the select list, yet, the State does not enjoy an unqualified
prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion.
(9) The decision of the Authority or the State must precede by a prima
facie satisfaction about the correctness of the allegations and
formulation and recording of reasons in support of the view that
the competent authority was taking.
(10) The decision of the competent authority can be based on
admitted facts or facts verified from records or an enquiry
howsoever summary may be, but, an order, neither based on
enquiry nor a prima facie view is unsustainable.
(11) Sufficiency or relevancy of material would not be gone into,
unless it is so perverse that such a decision cannot be arrived at.
43. It is the case of the respondents, that they rely upon preliminary
report by the Directorate of Vigilance, report of the Committee and at
best the preliminary report of the enquiry or investigation pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court, which can be considered as an additional
evidence, which substantiates the preliminary report of the Directorate of
Vigilance in support of their decision to cancel the selection process.
41. In the preliminary report of the Directorate of Vigilance, which
looked into the procedure adopted for the recruitment for the post of
Junior Executive (I.T) from different aspects including advertisement,
application process, written examination, interview, result, OMR sheets
of the candidates called for the interview, test booklet/answer keys.
With regard to written examination, some of the observations in the
preliminary report are as under:-
"4.2.3 It is apparent from the agency‟s inability in
adopting 9/10 digit roll numbers that the agency was
already having pre-printed Test booklets/OMR sheets in
advance before conducting the exam for advertisement
no.02/2012. This is against the spirit of fair and
transparent conduct of exams.
4.2.4 The emails to the candidates requesting to download
the hall ticket were not sent before commencement of the
written test on 26.08.12. Also it was not checked that how
many candidates had downloaded their hall tickets. This
casual approach might have led to lower percentage
(19%) of candidates turning up for the written exam.
4.2.5 The half ticket issued by the Dte. Of HR to the
candidates was not having their scanned photographs and
signatures uploaded at the time of application for
matching the same during the written examination
conducted by the agency. The details of the online
recruitment applicants were forwarded by Directorate of
HR to the agency in excel format does not include the
scanned copy of photograph/ digital or scanned signature
of the candidate. Therefore the signature and photographs
of the candidates were not verified during/after the written
exams. This creates opportunity for proxy sittings in the
exam.
4.2.6 It has been observed that the observer have given
their report in a tailor made form i.e Total No. of
Candidates and their attendance at the specific center.
However, no specific reports/Comments in the form of
general administration i.e any doubt about the
question/copying or leakage of exam or any specific
complaint made by the Candidate at the particular center
was not given. However, Directorate of HR sought the
report through RED/APD on conduct of the examination
which has not been submitted by most of the center
observers.
4.2.7. The agency vide their letter dt. 19.09.12 submitted
the result of written test to GM (HR) which was held on
26.08.12 for the post of JE (IT). After receipt of the result
from the agency the result was uploaded on AAI website on
16.10.12. However, it has been observed that no
crosscheck or re-verification of the result viz-a-viz marks
obtained by the successful candidates has been done byt he
HR as a confirmation.
4.2.8. It has been observed that after receiving the
applications online, all the other activities were done
manually or through M/s CPR. This is not in spirit of
online recruitment systems.
4.2.9 There is a scope for unscrupulous candidates to run
away with the question paper in the beginning of exam or
adopt other sophisticated electronic gadgets to copy ad
leak the paper which can be solved and passed on to the
candidates sitting in the examination center since there is
no preliminary screening of candidates.
4.2.10. There was no syllabus provided to the
agency/candidates for written examination. The pattern of
examination was provided to the agency/candidates in the
name of the syllabus"
44. Similarly, under the heading "Result" the following were the
observations of the Directorate of Vigilance:-
"6.2.1 Following has been observed from the list of
selected candidates:
6.2.1.1 11 out of 11 General candidates, 4 out of 5
OBC candidates, 2 out of 3 SC candidates and 1 out of 1
ST candidate selected from the post are from Delhi Region.
Out of 20 candidates selected 14 candidates are either
from Haryana state or have obtained their qualifying
degree from this state.
6.2.1.2 The candidates of Delhi region mostly
belonging to the Haryana or studied there have scored up
to 20% higher marks in the written exam in their
respective categories compared to any other state/region.
6.2.1.3 6 out of 11 general candidates, 3 out of 5
OBC candidates were selected due to higher written marks
and scored lower marks in interview.
6.2.1.4 Out of the 11 selected general candidates 7
candidates have secured less than 70 percentages of marks
in their qualifying degree, out of which 6 candidates had
65% marks or below in their qualifying degree.
6.2.1.5 Out of 5 OBC candidates selected for the post
3 were having 63% or lesser marks in their qualifying
degree but scored very high marks in written exams and
lower marks in the interview.
6.2.1.6 Out of 20 successful candidates 8 candidates
are from Maharshi Dayanand University and 3 candidates
are from Kurushetra University.
6.2.2. Following has been observed from the list of
unsuccessful candidates:
6.2.2.1 The 12 out of 14 unsuccessful general
candidates have secured marks in written exams ranging
from 73 to 76. All these candidates were a good mix of all
India students. Among these 12 unsuccessful general
candidates 3 were having more than 80% of marks, 7 were
having more than 75% marks and 2 were having more
than 70% marks in their qualifying degrees.
6.2.2.2 The remaining two general candidates
belonging to the Haryana scored very high marks in
written exam but could not be selected as one candidate
scored very low marks (5) in interview and the other
candidate did not attend the interview. Both these
candidates have secured less than 70% marks in their
qualifying degree.
6.2.2.3 Similarly 2 OBC candidates belonging to the
Haryana or studied there scored very high marks in
written exam but could not be selected as 1 OBC candidate
scored very low marks (4) in interview and the other
candidate did not attend the interview. Both these
candidates have secured less than 70% marks in their
qualifying degree.
6.2.2.4 The only unsuccessful SC candidate
belonging to the Haryana or studied there scored highest
marks in SC category, but could not be selected due to very
poor marks in the interview (11). The candidate has
secured 72% marks in the qualifying degree.
6.2.2.5 The presence of the candidates of Haryana
region or having qualifying degree from Haryana in the
list of unsuccessful candidates is very low i.e only 5
candidates out of 36 and are mentioned in Para 6.2.2.2,
6.2.2.3 and 6.2.2.4 of the report. These 5 candidates have
scored up to 20% more marks than other candidates in
their respective categories but were not selected due to
very poor marks in interview or being absent. These
candidates could have been selected if they had scored
even 50% marks in the interview.
6.2.3 Majority of the general candidates finally selected
for the posts appears to be predetermined candidates by
virtue of their high scores in written examination. The
analysis of the results indicates that the marks of the
written examination are manipulated to favour a set of
candidates mostly belonging to Haryana state or studied
there. These candidates are otherwise not academically
sound and does not appear suitable for the post
considering their credentials and scores in interview.
6.2.4 The five OBC candidates who have scored high
marks in written examination for the five vacancies in
OBC category also appears to be predetermined. This is
not in line with the all India trend of scores which strongly
suggest manipulation in written exam. However, two of
them could not make it to final selection as one of the
candidate scored only 4 marks in interview and one
candidate could not attend the interview.
6.2.5. One of the SC candidates who have scored high
marks in written exam for three vacancies in SC category
also appears predetermined. However this candidate
could not make it to final selection besides scoring higher
marks in the written exam among SC candidates due to
poor score in interview.
6.2.6. The candidates who have secured bare minimum of
5 to 10 marks out of 30 in the interview are also coming in
the merit list for giving offer of appointment due to their
higher percentage in the written test which is having
weightage of 80%. However, no action was taken in this
regard by department of HR.
6.2.7. The random checking of written test marks obtained
by the candidates appeared for the interview was carried
out by the team and it is observed that marks of one of the
candidate Ms. Mona Taneja (Roll No.110487) comes to
103 where as the marks obtained has been shown as 101 in
the results provided by M/s CPR. This creates doubt over
validity of the results.
6.2.8 The majority of candidates selected are from Delhi
Region in which Haryana state also falls. The Region-wise
numbers of candidates who applied for the post and
subsequently appeared for written test are as under which
shows that 44% candidates appeared for written test are
from Delhi Region. However, in the final selection is 90%
candidates are from Delhi Region.
Center Name Center Total % of total
Code Applicant Candidates
appeared for
Written test
Ahmadabad 10 641 144 (22.06%)
Allahabad 7 948 222 (23.42%)
Chennai 4 3533 647 (18.3%)
Delhi 1 8438 1962 ((23.25%)
Guwahati 8 219 36 (16.43%)
Hyderabad 5 3164 440 (13.91%)
Kolkata 3 1753 370 (21.11%)
Mumbai 2 1354 244(18.02%)
Nagpur 9 1007 155 (15.39%)
Trivandrum 6 2004 206 (10.28%)
Total 23061 4426
. % of Delhi Region candidates among the candidates
appeared for written test: 44%
. % of Delhi Region candidates selected among the
candidates called for interview: 69.6%
. % of Delhi Region candidates finally selected i.e 18
candidates out of 20 : 90%
45. On OMR sheets of the candidates, called for the interview, the
following are the observations:-
"7.2.1 Following has been observed while analyzing
the OMR sheets used for the written examination:
i. In the column of OMR sheets name, roll No., booklet
series and Test Form No. etc., has been filled by the
candidates in ink or pencil as per their desire, no clear cut
instructions is given against these columns.
ii. The OMR sheet does not indicate the post code, date
of examination etc.
iii. The OMR sheets supplied were not having Serial
Nos.
7.2.2 It has been observed that Dte. Of HR has not
ensured the following before/after conducting the exam:
a. Vetting of the answers keys from third independent
agency.
b. Checking of sample test booklets/sample OMR
sheets.
c. Reconciliation of final result with the OMR sheet.
7.2.3 The marking of the answers in the OMR sheet is
done by the candidates by darkening the circles with HB
pencils, which can be tempered/altered with in absence of
proper checks like obtaining a photocopy of the OMR
sheets at the exam centers by AAI observers.
7.2.4 The table for „A‟ series booklet shows that the
candidates belonging to Haryana state or studied there or
have scored higher marks in written exam have marked
same options for the 10 wrong questions in this test
booklet. It appears that these candidates were supplied
with answer keys wherein some answers were deliberately
marked wrong, probably to control the scoring of marks in
the written examination. An extract of the table in respect
of these candidates is as below:
Roll No. Name Place of Marks Wrong Sl. No. of
Residence obtained answers wrong
in written answers
exam having same
option of the
candidates
who have
scored higher
marks in
written exam
110487 Mona Karnal, 101 17 21 (4) 26 (3)
Successful Taneja Haryana 29 (2) 33(3)
45 (4) 58 (3)
72(4) 73(1) 82
(3) 87 (4)
102(2) - 10
answers
111479 Vineet Bahadurga 88 32 21(4) 26(3)
Successful Asiwal rh, 29(2) 33(3)
Haryana 45(4) 58(3)
72(4) 73(1) 82
(3) 87(4)
102(2)-10
answers
114555 Sumit Jind, 96 24 21(4) 26(3)
Unsuccessf Haryana 29(2) 33(3)
ul 45(4) 58(3)
72(4) 73(1) 82
(3) 87(4)
102(2)-10
answers
111091 Sandeep Kanpur, 95 25 21(4) 26(3)
Successful Chaurasi U.P 29(2) 45(4)
a 69(1) 72(4)
73(1) 82 (3)
87(4) 102(2)
117(3)
119(1)-10
answers
7.2.5 The table for „B‟ series booklet shows that the
candidates belonging to Haryana state or studied there or
have scored higher marks in written exam have marked
same options for the 12 wrong questions in the test
booklet. It appears that these candidates were supplied
with answer keys wherein some answers were deliberately
marked wrong, probably to control the scoring of marks in
the written examination. An extract of the table in respect
of these candidates is as below:
Roll No. Name Residential Marks Wrong Sl. No. of
address obtained answers wrong
in written answers
exam having same
option of the
candidates
who have
scored higher
marks in
written exam
112292 Ms. Joyti Gurgaon, 98 22 14(4) 22(2)
Successful Yadav Haryana 26(3) 38(4)
51(3) 62(4)
66(2) 72 (3)
77(4) 98(2)
118 (4)
119(1)-12
Answers
114864 Anurag Rohtak, 99 21 14(4) 22(2)
Unsuccessf Duhan Haryana 26(3) 38(4)
ul 51(3) 62(4)
66(2) 72 (3)
77(4) 98(2)
118 (4)
119(1)-12
Answers
7.2.7 The table „D‟ series booklet shows that the
candidates belonging to Haryana state or studied there or
have scored higher marks in written exam have marked
same options for the 11 wrong questions in this test
booklet. It appears that these candidates were supplied
with answer keys wherein some answers were deliberately
marked wrong, probably to control the scoring of marks in
the written examination. An extract of the table in respect
of these candidates is as below:
Roll No. Name Residential Marks Wrong Sl. No. of
address obtained answers wrong
in written answers
exam having same
option of the
candidates
who have
scored higher
marks in
written exam
111946 Apoorva Tri Nagar, 101 19 8(3), 36(3),
Delhi 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82 (4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)-11
answers
112406 Sunil Panipat, 98 22 8(3), 36(3),
Phour Haryana 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82 (4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)-11
answers
108082 Sachin Gurgaon, 100 20 8(3), 36(3),
Punia Haryana 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82 (4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)-11
answers
114866 Mahesh Rewari, 91 29 8(3), 36(3),
Yadav Haryana 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82 (4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)-11
answers
109090 Vandana Gurgaon, 92 28 8(3), 36(3),
Haryana 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82 (4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)-11
answers
107914 Manoj Delhi 103 17 8(3), 36(3),
Choudha 39(2), 55(4),
ry 78(4), 79(1),
82 (4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)-11
answers
7.2.8 It has been noticed that there is a relationship
between the same questions in the different series. The
findings are tabulated below:
Sl. No. of the same questions in various series
A B C D Remarks
21 14(-7) 46(+25) 31(+10) All the
26 19(-7) 51(+25) 36(+10) questions are
29 22(-7) 54(+25) 39(+10) same bearing
33 26(-7) 58(+25) 43(+10) different serial
45 38(-7) 10(+25) 55(+10) number
58 51(-7) 23(+25) 8(+10) depending
72 62(-10) 102(+30) 82(+10) upon the series
73 63(-10) 103(+30) 83(+10) of the test
82 72(-10) 112(+30) 92(+10) booklet. The
serial numbers
87 77(-10) 117(+30) 97(+10)
shown are
mathematically
related.
*Deduct 60 if total exceeds 60
It is evident from the table that all the test booklet series
are mathematically related and answers in different series
can easily be computed with a single key.
7.2.9. On the basis of the above relationship comparison
of the options of the same wrong questions among different
series was carried out and the same tabulated below:
Sl. No. of the same questions in various series
A B C D Remarks
21 (4) 14(4) 46(4) 31(4) The number
26(3) 19(3) 51(3) 36(3) within the
29(2) 22(2) 54(2) 39(2) bracket
33(3) 26(3) 58(3) 43(3) shows the sl.
45(4) 38(4) 10(4) 55(4) No. of the
58(3) 51(3) 23(3) 8(3) option
72(4) 62(4) 102(4) 82(4) marked by
73(1) 63(1) 103(1) 83(10) the
82(3) 72(3) 112(3) 92(3) candidate.
87(4) 77(4) 117(4) 97(4) All these
Ms. Mona Ms. Jyoti Sh. Manu Sh. Manoj candidates
have marked
Taneja Yadav Yadav Choudhary
same option
for these
questions
irrespective
of their series
for which the
answers are
wrong.
The table shows that the candidates belonging to Haryana
state or studied there or have scored higher marks in
written exam have marked same options for the 10 wrong
questions irrespective of the series. Thus it can be inferred
that predetermined candidates were supplied with answer
keys during or prior to the examination resulting in same
options for wrong answers. Such type of similarity while
marking one of the option out of four is abnormal which
cannot take place without outside help during or prior to
examination.
46. Against test booklet/answer keys, the following were the
observations:-
"8.2.1 On examination of the test booklets series A, B, C
& D provided by the HR, following is observed:
a. No column was provided for mentioning the Roll
No. hence; there exist possibility to exchange the test
booklets for copying and also providing the answers from
outside.
b. Test Date and Post code was not mentioned.
c. There was no instruction on wrong answer or
negative marking.
d. Instruction for use of mobiles/calculators or
electronic gadgets is not mentioned in the test booklet.
e. No instructions were given in the booklet for filling
up the OMR sheets.
f. The used test booklets were sought from HR
directorate but the concerned officials have no clue
whether the test booklet are given to the candidates after
completion of written examination or still available with
the recruiting agency. This confirms that Directorate of
HR did not pay much needed attention to the recruitment
process.
8.2.2 The pattern of the question paper for IT discipline is
kept at par with non technical disciplines i.e 50%
questions from the IT discipline and 50% from General
Knowledge/Aptitude/Reasoning/English etc. Whereas in
the other technical disciplines 70% of the questions were
from technical side and 30% questions were from General
Knowledge/Aptitude/Reasoning/English etc. The treatment
of IT as non technical discipline is not justified and it
appears that no thgout was given for deciding pattern of
question paper for this highly technical discipline.
8.2.3. The questions asked in the written test were
randomly checked and following has been noticed:
8.2.3.1 Among general questions two numbers of
questions were found wrong. (Q. No.2 & 21 in series „A‟,
Q. No.55 & 14 in series „B‟, Q. No.27 & 46 in series „C‟
and Q. No.12 & 31 in series „D‟) as there is no correct
answer in first question and in the second question the
question asked itself is wrong.
8.2.3.2 On perusal of the answer keys submitted by
the agency to Dte. Of HR in a sealed cover, it is seen that
same is not certified or countersigned by the authorized
signatory.
8.2.3.3 It has also been observed from the answer
keys that no correct answer is given against one question
i.e Booklet Series A-Q No.14, B-Q. No.7, C-Q.NO.39 & D-
Q. No.24. However it is found that the agency has
evaluated the OMR sheets by taking option 3 as correct
answer for this question. This shows that the agency‟s
casual approach during evaluation.
47. The final conclusion of the Directorate of Vigilance is as under:-
"Conclusion
From the observations made through stage wise analysis
brought out in previous sections, following conclusions
can be made:
9.1 The recruitment process has been manipulated to
favour a set of candidates belonging to Delhi region
especially Haryana state or those candidates who have
obtained their qualifying degree from this state. The
higher written marks of these candidates with their poor
credentials do not match with the average marks obtained
by all India candidates with better credentials. Further it
has been noticed that a large percentage of their options of
wrong questions matches with each other which is
abnormal while marking one out of four options. Thus it
can be concluded that their results were predetermined by
one of the following possible manipulation:
9.1.1 These candidates might have been supplied with the
answer keys prior to/during the examination.
9.1.2 The OMR sheets were left blank by the candidates
and the same were filled up later o before declaration of
results and these concocted answer sheets (OMR) were
submitted to AAI to support the predetermined result of the
written examination.
9.2 The agency for conducting the written exam was
hired by falsification of the facts, eliminating competition
and without verifying the credentials. Further the agency
was given free hand in the conduct of the examination and
no proper checks and balances were put in place, therefore
involvement of the concerned HR officials in the
manipulation cannot be ruled out.
9.3 The integrity of the results provided by the agency is
also doubtful in view of the wrong questions in the test
booklets and discrepancies in the answer keys like no
answers for one question and error in marks obtained by
one of the candidate i.e Ms. Mona Taneja.
9.4 The recruitment agency M/s CPR does not falls
under the purview of the Corporate Vigilance department,
therefore detailed investigation of this case could not be
carried out. However, detailed investigation on
irregularities in the appointment of the agency may be
ordered for fixing responsibility of the concerned HR
officials."
48. That even the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the
Airports Authority of India on the advise of the, the then learned
Additional Solicitor General also submitted its report on November 7,
2013. The Committee in its report, was of the opinion that the whole
process of the written examination conducted by the agency is only
questionable. According to the Committee, in the given situation, it is
possible to correct the faulty process of examination by conducting
written test again without involving the previous agency subject to
maintaining all other conditions of the recruitment.
49. In the report filed by the respondents after undertaking the process
as directed by this Court vide its order dated May 1, 2015, it is stated that
with respect to 45 petitioners the report details as under:-
"Report on Recruitment to the posts of JE (IT/Engg-
Civil/Engg-Elect/Airport Ops)
Airports Authority of India has been advised by the
Learned ASG who appeared in the matter on 01.05.2015 to
conduct an enquiry into the exams conducted in respect of
Junior Executive (Engg-Elec), Junior Executive (Engg-
Civil), Junior Executive (IT) & Junior Executive (Airport
Operations) to examine whether there was any
irregularities w.r.t the petitioners.
Accordingly, a committee consisting of officers of
Vigilance and HR Department have tabulated the data and
analyzed the facts.
The credentials of the 45 petitioners are tabulated and are
attached as Annexure-I to this report as per their
candidature for the respective post. The post wise analysis
of the facts are as under:
1. PATTERN OF RESULTS OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION
The Region-wise/Centre wise numbers of candidates who
applied for the post and subsequently appeared for written
test & interview are as under:
a) JE (IT):
Center Name Total % of total Presence of Total no. of
Applicant Candidates candidates in 1st candidates
appeared for 100 as per called for
Written test written test interview
Ahmadabad 641 144 (22.06%) 0 1 (SC)
Delhi 8438 (36.59%) 1962 (23.25%) 73(44.33%) 38 (67.86%)
The success rate in terms of percentage of the candidates
who appeared for Delhi as Centre, is disproportionally
high.
All the 5 petitioners for Junior Executive (IT) appeared for
the written examination at Delhi for Junior Executive (IT)
appeared for the written examination at Delhi Centre and
belong to Haryana.
b) JE (Airport Operations):
Center Name Total % of total Presence of Total no. of
Applicant Candidates candidates in 1st candidates
appeared for 100 as per called for
Written test written test interview
Delhi 9429 (40.77%) 3173 (49.94%) 94 (94%) 207 (78.11%)
Shri Naveen (Roll No.117315) S/o Shri Om Prakash, one
of petitioner did not appear int he written test. Remaining
27 petitioners for Junior Executive (Airport Operations)
post appeared for the written examination at Delhi Centre.
24 belong to Haryana, 2 to Delhi and 1 to Rajasthan.
c) JE (Civil):
Center Name Total % of total Presence of Total no. of
Applicant Candidates candidates in 1st candidates
appeared for 100 as per called for
Written test written test interview
Delhi 2652 (33.90%) 1185 (43.67%) 73 (73%) 116 (79.45%)
All the 04 petitioners for Junior Executive (Civil) appeared
for the written examination at Delhi Centre, 2 of them
belong to Delhi and one each to Rajasthan & UP.
d) JE (Electrical):
Center Name Total % of total Presence of Total no. of
Applicant Candidates candidates in 1st candidates
appeared for 100 as per called for
Written test written test interview
Delhi 4711 (33.88%) 1717(46.38%) 68 (68%) 120 (71.85%)
Out of the 8 petitioners for Junior Executive (Electrical), 7
appeared for the written examination at Delhi Centre and
1 appeared at Hyderabad centre. Out of 8 petitioners, 4
belong to Haryana, 2 belong to Rajasthan & 1 each belong
to UP & Andhra Pradesh.
2. Answering Pattern:
The answering pattern of the petitioners who appeared in
the written test has been checked and tabulated statement
is as under where petitioners are having the common
wrong answers for the same questions in different
Booklet Series:
JE (Operations):
Booklet Series A:
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Nitesh 117072 22 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Sumit Kohli 117204 16 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Manu Yadav # 118065 15 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Hitesh Yadav 118240 20 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Akash Yadav 119068 20 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Ombir Yadav 119672 16 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Ramveer Yadav 121348 19 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Parshant 121764 15 11(2), 46(1),
Aggarwal 56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Sumit Kumar 123200 17 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
Anand 125052 22 11(2), 46(1),
56(3), 64(4),
69(2), 70(3),
77(1)- 7 no.
# Sh. Manu Yadav (Roll No.118065) did not appear in the
interview for the post of Junior Executive (Airport
Operations) and hence he cannot be treated as valid
petitioner for seeking appointment for the said post.
Booklet Series B:
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Sunil 117077 21 26(1), 36(3),
51(2), 63(4),
98(4), 104(3),
111(1) -7 no.
Ashu Dahiya 117682 15 26(1), 36(3),
51(2), 63(4),
98(4), 104(3),
111(1) -7 no.
Rohit Kumar 121901 13 26(1), 36(3),
51(2), 63(4),
98(4), 104(3),
111(1) -7 no.
Parshant Kumar 123489 32 26(1), 36(3),
51(2), 63(4),
98(4), 104(3),
111(1) -7 no.
Chander Shekhar 124565 17 26(1), 36(3),
Saini 51(2), 63(4),
98(4), 104(3),
111(1) -7 no.
Booklet Series C:
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Sunil Kumar 118250 18 3(1), 13(3),
Yadav 28(2), 62(2),
63(3), 70(1),
108(2), 109(2),
116(4) & 117(4)
- 10 no.
Rohit Arora 118570 14 3(1), 13(3),
28(2), 62(2),
63(3), 70(1),
108(2), 109(2),
116(4) & 117(4)
- 10 no.
Sudhir Arora 118706 16 3(1), 13(3),
28(2), 62(2),
63(3), 70(1),
108(2), 109(2),
116(4) & 117(4)
- 10 no.
Sumit Sehrawat 122098 12 3(1), 13(3),
28(2), 62(2),
63(3), 70(1),
108(2), 109(2),
116(4) & 117(4)
- 10 no.
Deepak Yadav 122818 11 3(1), 13(3),
28(2), 62(2),
63(3), 70(1),
108(2), 109(2),
116(4) & 117(4)
- 10 no.
Booklet Series D:
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Ankur Yadav 117335 20 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Gaurav 117847 11 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Rishabh Yadav 117903 19 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Abhay Sharma 118135 14 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Satyender Singh 118547 15 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Anil Mor 120435 11 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Hitesh Tanwar 122039 13 1(2), 36(1),
46(3), 80(4),
85(2), 86(3) &
93(1) - 7 No.
Moreover, as same questions were there in different series
questions papers (in different orders), these 27 petitioners
have given following 6 common wrong options:
Booklet Series A Booklet Series B Booklet Series C Booklet Series D
11(2) 51(2) 28(2) 1(2)
46(1) 26(1) 3(1) 36(1)
56(3) 36(3) 13(3) 46(3)
64(4) 98(4) 117(4) 80(4)
70(3) 104(3) 63(3) 86(3)
77(1) 111(1) 70(1) 93(1)
Relationship between questions in different booklet
series:
There was mathematical relation between questions
booklets of different series, as evident from question
booklet for JE (Airport Operations) herein below:
Question booklet Series Question booklet Series B
A
1-20 41-60
21-60 1-40
61-86 95-120
87-120 61-94
Question booklet Series Question booklet Series C
A
1-43 18-60
44-60 1-17
61-67 114-120
68-120 61-113
Question booklet Series Question booklet Series D
A
1-10 51-60
11-60 1-50
61-104 77-120
105-120 61-76
Even options in different booklets were not shuffled.
JE (IT):
Booklet Series A: As no. of petitioners with Booklet Series
A is only 1, analysis has been made by considering one
more successful candidate.
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Mona Taneja* 110487 17 21(4), 26(3),
(Petitioner) 29(2, 33(3),
45(4), 58(3),
72(4), 73(1),
82(3), 87(4) &
102(2)- 11 no.
Vineet Asiwal 111479 32 21(4), 26(3),
29(2, 33(3),
45(4), 58(3),
72(4), 73(1),
82(3), 87(4) &
102(2)- 11 no.
* In the case of Ms. Mona Taneja (110487), M/s. CPR
has shown 101 marks in written test whereas as pr
answer keys provided by M/s CPR, she should have got
103 marks. As a result of this, combined merit list itself
is questionable as it affects the overall merit position.
Booklet Series C:
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Kamal Yadav 108621 25 10(4), 23(3), 27,
(Petitioner) 46(4), 51(3),
54(2), 58(3),
72(2), 90, 98(4),
99(1), 102(4),
103(1), 106(2),
112(3) & 117
(4)- 16 no.
Ajay Yadav 113029 33 10(4), 23(3), 27,
(Petitioners) 46(4), 51(3),
54(2), 58(3),
72(2), 90, 98(4),
99(1), 102(4),
103(1), 106(2),
112(3) & 117
(4)- 16 no.
Booklet Series D:
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Sunil Phour 112406 22 8(3), 36(3),
(Petitioner) 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82(4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)- 11 no.
Mahesh Yadav 114866 29 8(3), 36(3),
(Petitioner) 39(2), 55(4),
78(4), 79(1),
82(4), 83(1),
86(2), 97(4),
112(2)- 11 no.
Moreover, as same questions were there in different series
question papers (in different orders), these 5 petitioners
have given following 9 common wrong options:
Booklet Series A Booklet Series C Booklet Series D
26(3) 51(3) 36(3)
29(2) 54(2) 39(2)
45(4) 10(4) 55(4)
58(3) 23(3) 8(3)
72(4) 102(4) 82(4)
73(1) 103(1) 83(1)
87(4) 117(4) 97(4)
102(2) 72(2) 112(2)
Relationship between questions in different booklet
series:
There was mathematical relation between question
booklets of different series, as evident from question
booklet for JR (IT) herein below:
Question booklet Series Question booklet Series B
A
1-7 54-60
8-60 1-53
61-70 111-120
71-120 61-110
Question booklet Series Question booklet Series C
A
1-35 26-60
36-60 1-25
61-90 91-120
91-120 61-90
Question booklet Series Question booklet Series D
A
1-50 11-60
51-60 1-10
61-110 71-120
111-120 61-70
JE (Engg. Civil):
Booklet Series A: As no. of petitioners with Booklet Series
A is only 1, analysis has been made by considering one
more candidate.
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong
Candidate answers answers
Avinash Kumar 101382 44 17(3), 18(2),
Mahavar (SC) Successful 31(2), 36(2),
(Petitioner) 39(4), 60(4),
87(1), 89(1),
109(1), 117(4) -
10 no.
Prabhat Singh 100649 34 17(3), 18(2),
(SC) (Uttar Successful 31(2), 36(2),
Pradesh) 39(4), 60(4),
87(1), 89(1),
109(1), 117(4) -
10 no.
Booklet Series D: No. of petitioners with Booklet Series D
is 3, analysis has been made.
Name of Roll No. No. of Common Wrong answers
Candidate wrong
answers
S. 100716 31 2(2) 18(3) 18(3) 24(1)
Nandakumar Successful 45(4) 46(3) 37(3) 53(4)
(Petitioner) 49(4) 53(4) 80(4) 94(4)
57(3) 82(4) 108(2)
109(1)- 9 no. 109(1)- 8
no.
Mohit 100232 33 2(NA) 13(3),
Panwar Successful 18(NA) 18(NA),
(SC) 45(NA) 53(4),
(Petitioner) 46(NA) 93(2),
53(4) (NA)-5
57(NA) no. i/c
82(4) NA
109(NA)-
9 no.
including
NA(Not
Attempted)
Alok Kumar 100724 43 13(3), 18(3)
Krishnan Successful 18(NA), 24(1)
(Petitioner) 53(4), 37(3)
93(2), 53(4)
109 80(4)
(NA)-5 94(4)
no. i/c 108(2)
NA 109(1)-
8 no.
As brought out above the average common wrong answers
for 3 petitioners are around 7. However, being the less
number of petitioner the comparison of common wrong
answers among all the question booklet series is difficult.
As there is no negative marking in the test the reason for
not attempting a question creates doubt about the
candidate.
Even after not attempting several questions, the petitioner
Sh. Mohit Panwar got fairly good marks in written
examination and 8 marks out of 30 in interview. But still
the petitioner was in select list. Further the 9 questions he
has not attempted are same as of the other petitioners with
similar options. It appears and indicate that the petitioner
is a manipulated candidate.
Relationship between questions in different booklet
series:
There was mathematical relation between question
booklets of different series, as evident from question
booklet for JE (Engg. Civil) herein below:
Series A Series B Series C Series D Remarks
1-10 27-36 12-21 32-36 & 1-5 Reasoning,
11-15 1-5 22-26 6-10 GK & Non
16-36 6-26 27-36 & 1- 11-31 technical
11 question
37-120 107-120 & 77-120 & 57-120 & Technical
37-106 37-76 37-56 question
All the non technical questions among all the series are
from 1 to 36 & subject specific technical question starts
from 37 upto 120. As evident from above table the
sequence of the questions are same.
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong answers
Candidate answers
Jaideep Kandola 105346 26 29(3) 37(2) 39(4) 50(3)
Successful 70(2) 71(3) 85(3) 88(3)
107(1) 113(4) - 10 no.
Kalvala Sweekar 500539 55 29(3) 37(2) 39(4) 50(3)
Successful 70(2) 71(3) 85(3) 88(3)
107(1) 113(4) - 10 no.
Booklet Series B: No. of petitioners with Booklet Series B
is 2, analysis has been made.
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong answers
Candidate answers
Waseem Akram 103219 32 6(4) 14(4) 18(3) 19(3)
(OBC) Successful 48(2) 56(2) 57(3) 65(3)
69(4) 72 (not attempted)
74(NA) 75(4) 77(1) 79(1)
85(1) 93(1) 99(4) 106(1)
107(NA) 108(NA) 109(4)
110(NA) 115(2) 120(3) -
24 no. i/c (NA-Not
attempted)
Shakti Singh 103471 35 6(NA) 14(4) 18(3) 19(3)
(OBC) Successful 48(2) 56(2) 57(3) 65(3)
69(4) 72(3) 74(NA) 75(4)
77(1) 79(1) 85(1) 93(1)
99(4) 106(1) 107(NA)
108(NA) 109(4) 110(3)
115(2) 120(3) -24 no. i/c
(NA-Not attempted)
Booklet Series C: No. of petitioners with Booklet Series C
is 3.
Name of Roll No. No. of Common Wrong answers
Candidate wrong
answers
Santosh 102940 47 3(3) 4(3)
Kumari Successful 42(3) 44(3)
55(1) 77(2)
79(4) 85(2)
95(4) 110(2) -
10 no.
Manish 104672 26 3(3) 4(3) 35(4) 39(4)
Sehrawat Successful 42(3) 44(3) 41(3) 45(4)
55(1) 77(2) 47(1) 49(1)
79(4) 85(2) 51(2) 63(1)
95(4) 110(2) - 69(4) 76(1)
10 no. 86(1) 90(3)
102(2)
111(3) -
14no.
Parteek 103356 28 35(4) 39(4)
Yadav Successful 41(3) 45(4)
47(1) 49(1)
51(2) 63(1)
69(4) 76(1)
86(1) 90(3)
102(2)
111(3) -
14no.
Booklet Series D: No. of petitioners with Booklet Series D
is only 1, analysis has been made.
Name of Roll No. No. of wrong Common Wrong answers
Candidate answers
Rakesh Saini 105601 25 11(3) 19(4) 23(3) 24(3)
Successful 43(1) 49(4) 56(1) 57(2)
59(4) 65(2) 66(1) 70(3)
82(2) 90(2) 91(3) 99(3)
103(4) 105(3) 106(3)
108(3) 109(4) 111(1)
113(1) 115(3) 119(1)
Relationship between questions in different booklet series:
There was mathematical relation between question booklets of
different series, as evident from question booklet for JE (Engg.
Elect.) herein below.
Series A Series B Series Series D Remarks
C
1-36 27-36 12-36 32-36 & 31 Reasoning, GK &
& 1-26 & 1-11 Non technical
question
37-120 107-120 77-120 57-120 & Technical question
& 37-106 & 37- 37-56
All the non technical questions among all the series are from 1 to
36 and subject specific technical question starts from 37 upto 120.
As evident from above table the sequence of the questions are
same.
Moreover, as same questions were there in different series
question papers (in different orders), these 6 petitioners out of 8
have given common wrong options for 17 questions:
SI. No. of the same questions in various series
A B C D
28(3) 18(3) 3(3) 23(3)
29(3) 19(3) 4(3) 24(3)
39(4) 109(4) 79(4) 59(4)
45(2) 115(2) 85(2) 65(2)
50(3) 120(3) 90(3) 70(3)
62(2) 48(2) 102(2) 82(2)
70(2) 56(2) 110(2) 90(2)
71(3) 57(3) 111(3) 91(3)
83(4) 69(4) 39(4) 103(4)
86(3) 72(NA) 42(3) 106(3)
89(4) 75(4) 45(4) 109(4)
91(1) 77(1) 47(1) 111(1)
93(1) 79(1) 49(1) 113(1)
99(1) 85(1) 55(1) 119(1)
107(1) 93(1) 63(1) 43(1)
113(4) 99(4) 69(4) 49(4)
120(1) 106(1) 76(1) 56(1)
Sh. Jaideep Sh. Waseem Akram Sh. Manish Sehrawat &Sh.
Sh.Rakesh Saini
Kandola & Sh. Shakti Singh Parteek Yadav
3. Other observations:
a) No clear cut instructions were there whether candidate‟s Roll
no., Booklet series, test form no. is to be filled with pen or
pencil resultantly some petitioners have filled the same with
pen and some with pencil.
b) There was a column of battery number on the OMR sheets. As
this number was for answer key, it should have been given in
bar
code form.
c) There was no negative working. But still petitioners have not
answered all questions. Usually, when negative marking is not
there, candidates try to answer all questions. Moreover in some
cases, it has been observed that candidate has erased the right
options marked earlier and left them blank E.g. Mr. Sumit Kohli
(Roll No. 117204). This appears to have been done to manipulate
the ranking to accommodate General Category candidate.
d) Almost all the petitioners either belong to Haryana Region of
have done their studies from Haryana Region.
e) Petitioners‟ marks in the academic studies were not good, but
still they were able to score high in written test.
f) On test booklets, no column has been provided for mentioning
the Roll number. Hence there exist possibility to exchange the test
booklets for copying and also providing the answers from outside.
4. Conclusion
a) Comparing the analysis of the results of the all the four posts in
question to which petitioners belong, it can be concluded beyond
doubt that, the recruitment process has been manipulated to
favour a set of candidates (petitioners) belonging to Delhi region
mainly Haryana state or those candidates who have obtained their
qualifying degree from the state. The higher written marks of these
candidates with their poor credentials do not match with the
average marks obtained by all India candidates with better
credentials. Further it has been noticed that a large percentage of
their options of wrong questions matches with each other which is
abnormal while marking one out of four options. Had there been a
fair competition such similarities in the results of written
examination in all these discipline was not possible by any means.
Following possibilities exists for the manipulation of the results:
i. These candidates must have been supplied with the answer keys
prior to/during the examination.
ii. The OMR sheets were left blank by the petitioners and the same
were filled up later on before declaration of results and these
concocted answer sheets (OMR) were submitted to AAI to support
the predetermined and result of the written examination.
b) On careful examination of the answering patterns, result of
written examination, the Centre of examinations and credentials of
the petitioners vis a vis other candidates, it appears that the
petitioners belongs to category of tainted candidates."
50. When the initial decision was taken on January 31, 2014 to redo
the written examination, the report of the Committee and the Directorate
of Vigilance with regard to recruitment process to the post of JE (I.T)
were available. A perusal of the report of the Directorate of Vigilance,
even though with regard to IT exam, it is noted, like, the agency‟s
inability in adopting 9/10 digit roll numbers, the agency was already
having pre-printed test booklets/OMR sheets in advance before the
conduct of the exam; it was not checked as to how many candidates have
downloaded their hall tickets; the half ticket to the candidates was not
having their scanned photographs and signatures uploaded at the time of
application for matching the same during the written examination; no
cross check or re-verification of the result vis-a-vis marks obtained by
the successful candidates has been done by the HR as a confirmation; 11
out of 11 General candidates, 4 out of 5 OBC candidates, 2 out of 3 SC
candidates and 1 out of 1 ST candidate selected for the post, are from
Delhi region; out of 20 candidates selected, 14 are from Haryana State or
have obtained their qualifying degree from this State; the selected
candidates mostly from Haryana or studied there; have scored up to 20%
higher marks in the written exams as compared to other State/region; 6
out of 1 General candidates; 3 out of 5 OBC candidates were selected
due to higher written marks and scored lower marks in Interview. Out
of 20 successful candidates, 8 candidates are from Maharishi Dayanand
University and 3 candidates are from Kurukshetra University; the
unsuccessful candidates, from Haryana were 5 out of 36, and who had
also scored, 20% more marks than other candidates in their respective
categories but were not selected due to poor marks in the Interview.
Apart from the above, many infirmities have been pointed out by the
Vigilance Directorate in its report. The report reflect certain omission
and commission on the part of the HR department as well. In substance,
it is noted, from the report, that various infirmities, procedure
irregularities, likelihood of unfair means having been adopted, had a
bearing on the result of the examination.
51. Similar is the position, in the preliminary report submitted
pursuant to the order of this Court dated May 1, 2015, with regard to the
other disciplines. The reports having been reproduced, are self speaking.
It is not a case, where there was no material before the competent
authority, while he took a decision (even though preliminary report was
not there). The material in the form of vigilance report being a detailed
one, was sufficient for the authority to come to a conclusion to cancel the
examination. The subsequent preliminary report submitted pursuant to
the order of this Court would also justify the action. When material
exists, the decision is justifiable. Suffice to state, it is for the agency
which is seized of the matter, to come to a definite conclusion on the
culpability with regard to the conduct of the exam. A perusal of the
three reports, it would be seen that there has been a systemic failure in
the conduct of the recruitment process and possible irregularities having
been committed during the conduct of the written examination. Mr.
Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General, during the course of
the arguments, had submitted that the Airports Authority of India would
not, in any way, cast aspersion on the petitioners, who have been named
in the reports as the investigation/enquiries have been carried out by the
Airports Authority of India through their inhouse mechanism unlike an
investigating agency. According to him, the nature of results depicting
the successful candidates being from one State who had taken
examination in Delhi centre, as the statistics reflects, does denote that the
conduct of the recruitment process by the agency is not above Board. In
other words, it is his submission, that it is not possible to separate
untainted candidates from the tainted ones. He would also state, that
there is some material with the authorities for forming an opinion to
cancel the recruitment process in the larger public interest when the posts
in question are public posts. The submission made by Mr. Jain is
appealing inasmuch as the relevant reports even though naming some of
the petitioners is only to drive a point that the nature of statistics
including the correct answers/wrong answers does support irregularities.
He may be right in suggesting that no aspersion can be cast on the
petitioners as the respondent itself decided to allow all the petitioners to
sit in the fresh recruitment process by allowing them age relaxation/fee
exemption. If they were regarded as tainted, there was no question of
allowing them to take part in the fresh recruitment process.
52. The submission of Ms. Jyoti Singh to justify the results, on various
grounds including that, Delhi Centre being a big centre consisting of 11
States, and it is natural that the maximum number of applicants are in
this Centre, so also the number of candidates qualifying the examination,
is not appealing, when on a deeper look on the reports referred to above,
does indicate an abnormal outcome, which would justify the impugned
action.
53. Insofar as the submissions made by other counsels i.e. Mr. Rahul
Sharma, Mr.U.P.Singh, and Mr. Manoj V. George that there is no
evidence of wrong doing against any of their clients is concerned, suffice
to state, in view of the conclusion of this Court above, that the conduct
of the examination per se, by the agency, as well as certain omissions
and commissions on the part of the HR Department, being not above
board and the final outcome of the recruitment process, being against
public interest, which requires public posts should be manned through a
fair, transparent and legitimate process, the plea is liable to be rejected.
Even the submission of Mr. Manoj V. George that some of the
petitioners have taken examination from the other centres, would also
not hold good when the process followed, which resulted in low
attendance; likelihood of irregularities having been committed, which
had an ultimate effect on the results, is also rejected.
54. Insofar as the other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners i.e. Smt. Kiran Juneja and Ors. (supra), Girish
Srivastava and Ors. (supra), Neeraj Chaurasia (supra), Vikas Pratap
Singh and Ors. (supra), Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kuldeep Kumar
(supra) and Manoj Manu & Anr. (supra), on the aspect of irregularities
in the examination, are concerned, they have no application in the facts
of these cases and the conclusion arrived at by this Court above, in the
preceding paras. The action of the respondents needs to be upheld.
Suffice to state, anything said in this judgment is limited to the impugned
action under challenge in the writ petitions and would have no effect in
the investigations being carried out, pursuant to a FIR, which aspect is
noted above. I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The same are
dismissed.
55. No costs.
CM No.14388/2014 (u/O 1 R 10 CPC) in W.P.(C) 4597/2014
This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the
applicants namely Parshant Aggarwal, Manu Yadav and Parteek Yadav
for impleadment as petitioners.
In view of the fact that writ petition is dismissed, the present
application is also dismissed.
CM No. 8554/2014 (for directions) in W.P.(C) 2204/2014
CM No. 9152/2014 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 4597/2014
CM No. 16766/2015 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 8098/2015
CM No. 16788/2015 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 8110/2015
CM No. 7761/2015 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 4279/2015
CM No. 1142/2015 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 6129/2015
In view of the fact the writ petitions are dismissed, the present
applications are also dismissed.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JANUARY 25, 2016
km/ak/akb
