UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOINUDDIN AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 13th May, 2003 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') in Original Application Nos. 900 of 2002, 908 of 2002 and 918 of 2002 has led to the filing of these petitions by not only the applicants before the Tribunal who had appeared at the examination conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'board') for selection to the post of Supervisor but also by the Union of India.

(2.) THE order passed by the Board cancelling the candidature of 37 candidates and debarring them from appearing at future examination as they had adopted unfair means at the examination was challenged before the Tribunal in the aforesaid three Original Applications. THE Tribunal by means of the judgment and order dated 13th May, 2003 partly allowed the Original Applications by not only quashing the aforesaid order but further directing the Board to hold the examination afresh for all the candidates who had appeared at the earlier examination. Out of these five petitions, two petitions have been filed by the candidates whose result had been cancelled by the Board and a relief has been claimed that not only the judgment of the Tribunal should be set aside but the decision taken by the Board should also be set aside. THE Union of India has also filed these three petitions contending that the judgment of the Tribunal should be set aside and the order of the Board should be maintained.

(3.) THOUGH in the aforesaid letter only 36 candidates were mentioned but it was found that there were 37 candidates as the candidate bearing Roll No. 2709447 was also referred to in the letter dated 28th April, 2000. The aforesaid report dated 28th April, 2000 was placed before the Board which directed that action should be taken against all the 37 candidates who were suspected of having used unfair means at the examination. This resulted in show-cause notices being issued to all the 37 candidates. The candidates filed the replies and they were also called for personal hearing. At the time of personal hearing written replies and answer-sheets and question papers of each candidate were also taken out and scrutinized and the candidates were also asked to respond to some of the questions attempted during the examination. The report dated 6th June, 2002 shows that the charges, the written reply submitted by the candidates and the reply submitted by each of the candidate at the time of personal hearing was separately considered in detail and then recommendations were made.