UNION OF INDIA Vs. VINOD KUMAR MANI TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of a common judgment and order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. Allahabad in Original Application Nos. 180 of 1998 and 750 of 1999. Since, common questions of law and fact are involved in both these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Railway Recruitment Board (for short 'the Board') Northern Railway, Allahabad issued advertisement vide Employment Notice No. 3/96-97 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection of different categories of posts numbering 18 of which category No. 4 relates to Section Engineer (P.Way). There were in total seven posts of which three relate to general category, three to O.B.C. and one to Schedule Caste. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 being Engineers applied to the said posts and appeared in the written test conducted by the Board. After merit list of 23 candidates was prepared, notice was published in the newspaper informing successful candidates to appear for viva voce test. The roll number of respondent No. 1, Vinod Kumar Mani Tripathi being not there in the select list, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No. 6 challenging the whole process of selection by filing Original Application No. 180 of 1998. His case in nutshell was that he had secured 106 marks out of full mark 120 but surprisingly, he was not declared to have been selected whereas candidates having secured 103 and 105 marks were selected and called for viva voce test. To the application, he attached a statement indicating the roll number of the candidates and the marks secured by them in the written test. He made serious allegations against the Board and its officials in conducting the selection alleging that there were a lot of bungling done at the behest of Sri S. P. Saroj, Ex-Chairman of the Board and one Nipendra Singh (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the Original Application) for their personal gain. According to him, they changed the original copies of the answer sheets and got the marks awarded in order to show favour to those candidates of their choice. It was further alleged that Sri S. P. Saroj and Nipendra Singh were very close to each other and the latter parted with his Maruti Car to Sri Saroj as long as he was holding the office of the Chairman. Money power played a vital role in the entire selection process and those who could grease their hands become successful to get their names included in the merit list, but as he did not succumb to such illegal demand, his name was omitted though he had secured good marks. It was specifically alleged that with the money earned, Sri Nipendra Singh constructed a house fitted with four A.Cs. in Judges Colony, Stanley Road, Allahabad, besides he purchased property at Nagpur City on payment of Rs. 15 lakhs. Since the whole selection process was vitiated, inasmuch as, the selection was made on 'give and take' basis by S. P. Saroj and Nipendra Singh, in order to weed out corruption in the highest level a roving enquiry should be conducted by the C.B.I. While making all these allegations, he prayed that the Board and its functionaries be directed to permit him to appear in the viva voce for the post of Section Engineer as he had secured marks more than those whose names were published in the select-list and in the event, he was found successful further direction be given to appoint him on the said post.

(3.) Having entertained the Original Application of Vinod Kumar Mani Tripathi, the Tribunal passed the interim order that the viva voce test may be held, but the result shall not be declared till the next date. Pursuant to the said order, the candidates whose names found place in the merit list appeared in the vice voce test but the result was not declared. Subsequently, the aforesaid interim order was modified to the extent that the result of the interview be declared and till disposal of the case, one post be kept reserved so that in case the application was allowed, the vacant post would be made available to Sri Tripathi. Even thereafter when the Chairman of the Board did not declare the result, four successful candidates (respondent Nos. 2 to 5) applied for being impleaded as parties and prayed for a direction to the Chairman to declare the result. Initially Chairman, took the stand that selection process was fair and applied to the Tribunal to allow him to declare the result of the interview. But after Sri P. K. Gupta joined as Chairman, the matter took altogether a different turn. He moved the Tribunal for permission to cancel the selection since such a decision was taken by the authorities of the Railway Board. This led the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to file a separate Original Application No. 750 of 1999. They asserted that there being no acceptable material that there were serious lapses or illegalities committed by the Recruiting Agency in the process of selection, the entire select list should not be cancelled and, therefore, the decision taken by the authorities, to cancel the selection was illegal and unsustainable in law. If at all the authorities were of the opinion that the secrecy could not be maintained, in other words, the marks secured by the candidates in the written test could be made known to the public blame must go to the Board but for that, successful candidates should not suffer. They also challenged the decision of Chairman for holding fresh interview pursuant to the direction of Government of India, Ministry of Railways. The Board through its Chairman Gurnam Singh Rekhi filed return urging that in the matter of selection it is the usual procedure to scrutinise the application forms of the candidates at two stages one, before the written examination and the other before the viva voce, so that any discrepancy/deficiency may not go unnoticed. In the case on hand, the application forms of Sri Vinod Kumar Mani Tripathi and some others were cancelled at the second stage of scrutiny since the same were not properly filled-in in terms and conditions specified in the employment notice. Therefore, no bias or ill will could be imputed to the Board or its functionaries for taking such a decision. He asserted that with due fairness, interview was conducted by a panel of seven members and there was no ground warranting interference in the matter of selection by the Tribunal. He, however, urged that in view of leakage of the answer sheets, direction should be issued for necessary investigation as to how the copies of confidential report pertaining to evaluation of answer-sheets could reach the hand of Sri Tripathi.