Karnataka High Court
Rajesh G. S/O. Sri.Prakash Rao G vs Senior Deputy General Manager ... on 1 June, 2022
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT PETITION NO. 104206 OF 2021 (S-CAT)
C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 101354 OF 2022
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 104206 OF 2021 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJESH G., S/O. SRI. PRAKASH RAO G.
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. HOUSE NO.96, CHALUKYA NAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SDGM)
VIGILIANCE BRANCH
GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE,
NEW GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE BUILDING,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI,
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA B
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
V
VINAYAKA Location:
BV DHARWAD
Date:
2022.06.04
11:23:01
+0530
-2-
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
2. CHAIRMAN
RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL
2ND FLOOR, OLD GM BUILDING,
KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
3. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00447/2019 AND ALLOW THE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 101354 OF 2022 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. RAKESH V. GUTTAKULAM,
S/O. SRI. VENKATESH
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. HOUSE NO.96, CHALUKYA NAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
...PETITIONER
-3-
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL AND
SRI. S. S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SDGM)
VIGILIANCE BRANCH
GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE,
NEW GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE BUILDING,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
2. CHAIRMAN
RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL
2ND FLOOR, OLD GM BUILDING,
KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
3. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1-R3)
THIS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.10.2019
PASSED BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE BENCH, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
-4-
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
NO.170/00444/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY KRISHNA S. DIXIT J., PASSED
FOLLOWING;
ORDER
These petitions lay a challenge to the Order dated
11.10.2019 made by Bengaluru Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal whereby the challenge to de-
candidaturing of the petitioners for the recruitment on the
ground of their culpable conduct, has been negatived.
After service of notice, the respondents having entered
appearance through their Panel Counsel resist the
petitions making submission in justification of the
impugned order and the reasons on which it is
constructed.
2. Brief foundational facts:
i) Petitioners were two of the candidates in
the recruitment frame for the Group-D
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
posts, the said process have been began
with the issuance of recruitment notice
dated 28.09.2013. Written examinations
having been completed, and efficiency test
having been passed, petitioners were found
to be qualified. They also passed through
the medical examination. The records of the
petitioners were also verified and found
correct.
ii) The 1st respondent vide letter dated
16.07.2015 requested the CBI to
investigate into the rampant malpractice in
the examination centre, allegedly
perpetrated on 09.11.2016 and
16.11.2014. The CBI after investigation had
found the petitioners guilty of the allegation
of malpractice. Accordingly, the 2nd
respondent issued an endorsement dated
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
06.02.2019 to the same effect and thereby
de-candidaturing the petitioners. The
challenge to the same having been
negatived by the CAT, petitioners are
grieving before the Writ Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers we decline
indulgence in the matter agreeing with the reasoning of
the impugned order. The vehement contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners that in view of subject
notification, the matter could not have been referred to
CBI investigation at all is bit difficult to countenance. The
said notification is not shown to be issued under any
specific provision of law. It is in the form of an
administrative order laying down only a general guideline
violation of which does not clothe the petitioners with a
choate cause of action. Such an instrument does not
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
constitute a China Wall against all investigations including
the one in question.
4. It hardly needs to be stated that in public
recruitment, persons participating in the process with
unclean hands cannot be favoured, especially when
untainted lot is available in the open market. The
employing agencies cannot be faltered when they cause
some reasonable enquiry when shady deals do occur in the
recruitment process, malpractice in the examination being
one of them. Those aspiring public employment need to be
above board. Where some reasonable enquiry is made by
an expert agency like CBI and it reveals malpractice a
prima facie attributable to some of the candidates, it is not
desirable that they should be inducted into public service.
Added, such an enquiry need not be a rowing inquiry. The
CAT after considering the material on record has denied
relief to the petitioners and the same cannot be found
fault with.
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
5. Learned CGC appearing for the respondents is
more than justified in notifying to the Court the following
observations of the CBI at paragraph 9 (ii) (34) of the
report:
"9 (ii) (34) During the investigation Shri.Shaju A
Fancis, Sr. VO/A, SDGM, South Western Railway,
Hubli referred a complaint vide No. G
265/VIG/Pers-II/14/30060 dated 16.07.2015
alleging that two candidates by name (1) Mr.
Rajesh G (OBC) s/o Shri. Prakash Rao G, Roll No.
13232608 & (2) Mr. Rakesh V G (SC), S/o Shri. V
Guttakulam have been qualified in the Railway
Recruitment Cell (RRC) examination held on
09.11.2014 at St. Joseph's High School, Jubilee
Circle, Dharwad by getting answers of the questions
through mobile phones.
On scrutiny, it was ascertained that Shri.Rakesh
was given his mobile number as 9739698759 and
Shri. Rajesh G had given his mobile number as
8123531467. Both the mobile numbers were cross
checked with the two numbers of the mobile
phones i.e., 7204557029 & 7760756210, which
were sent answers SMS to various candidates in
this case. Out of which, the mobile number
8123531467 of Shri. Rajesh.G had received 4
numbers of SMS on 09.11.2014 from the mobile
number 7760756210. This shows that Shri.Rajesh
G, the candidate who qualified in the Railway
Recruitment Cell (RRC) examination had received
answers SMS from the main conspirators involved
in this case. The given mobile number of
Shri.Rakesh.V.G, the other candidate did not reflect
in the CDR of 7204557029 & 7760756210.
However, Shri.Rakesh.V.G might have used some
other mobile number for getting the answers SMS.
Though a detailed investigation has not done in
these instances, prima-facie the allegations leveled
WP No. 104206 of 2021
C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022
against Shri.Rakesh.V.G and Shri.G.Rajesh, the
candidates, who qualified with the answers SMS
over mobile phones is substantiated."
When no malafide is alleged against the CBI, we
cannot find fault with the respondents in denying public
employment to the petitioners. Despite lengthy
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, we are
not impressed that the matter requires a deeper
consideration.
In the above circumstance both the writ petitions
being devoid of merits are liable to be rejected and
accordingly they are, costs having been made easy. This
judgment shall not bor the petitioners from staking their
claims for appointment in a fresh recruitment process.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH/SSP
