BISWA RAN.JAN SAHOO AND ORS.versusSUSHANTA KUMAR DLNDA AND ORS.

A                       BISWA RAN.JAN SAHOO AND ORS.
                                      v.
                      SUSHANTA KUMAR DlNDA AND ORS.

                                      MAY 8, 1996

B    [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j

             Se1vice Law:

           Selection proces;~Lack of intewity and si11wity in-Ruilway.1~Setec-
C   tion for Chargemen 'B' Grade i11 Mechanical and Elect1ical Division-Mass
    111al-practice in selection process-Central Ad1ninistrative T1ibunal setting
    aside the selections 111ade, ivithout giving notice to tlze selected can-
    didates-Held, T1ibunal ivas light in not issuing notice to persons tt-•ho are
    said lo have been selected and given a11pointn1ent-Procedure adopted in
    selection process is i11 flagrant breach of the 1U!es offending Articles 14 and
D   16 of the Constitution.

             Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 14 and 16.

           Selection for charge111en 'B' Grade in Railways-Alass !vial- practice in
    selection proces~Procedure adopted is in flagrant breach of the 1U/es offend·
E   ing Articles 14 and 16-Tlibuna/ was light in 1wt issuing notice to persons
    said to have been selected and given appoinflnent.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9157 of
    1996 etc.
F         From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.96 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Cuttak in Review Application No. 7 of 1995.

             Santosh Hedge, KN. Tripathy and Janaranjan Das for the Appel-
    !ants.
G
             The following Order of the Court was delivered:

             Leave granted.

             These appeals by special leave arise from the order of Central
H Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench made on October 10, 1994 and
                                            570
                      B.R. SAHOO v. S.K. DINDA                       571

March 20, 1996 in 0.A. No. 137/93 and Review Application No. 7/95 A
respectively. The orders disclose the alarming state of affairs regarding lack
of integrity and sincerity in the selection process, which is expected to
assess merit and recommend for appointment of competent and
meritorious persons according to the list prepared by the competent Selec-
tion Board. Reverse is the result shown in the process of selection . B
Pursuant to the advertisement No. 6/92 for filling up of six posts of
chargemen, 'B' Grade in mechanical & Electrical Division, the fake selec-
tion process appears to have been gone by and some persons came lo be
appointed including the petitioners. When the selection was questioned,
the Tribunal had called for the record and on the perusal of the record, C
noted as under :

       "The perusal of the Answer Book of the candidates with Roll No.
001078 (Umakanta Panigrahi) shows that though at SI. No. 3, in the first
page of the answer book, his marks were shown as '00' it was changed to
'20'. At Serial Number 11, there has been correction of the original marks D
to 25, the original marks appearing to be 20. This is how the total was
brought to 95. In second page of the answer book though the mark given
for Question No. 11 B were 10, later 5 has been added by someone to make
it 15. In page No. 4, after the answer 1/8 written by the candidate, there
could be seen some alternation to 0.8 by someone. The facing page of the
Answer Book of the v candidate 001235 (Sri Biswa Ranjan Sahoo) show E
over writing at three places. At SI. 2, original mark 16 appears to have been
chai\ged to 18 and total 91 appears to have been changed to 94. It is not
possible to mark out how and why answer book 001567 of candidate Rajni
Kanta Guru was evaluated by different examiner and marks noted in pencil
as also his signature as apparently initials on this answer book are totally F
different from the initials of the other examiner. There is practically no
explanation coming forth as to how and why this examiner was different
from this paper alone. We have perused the original tabulation which
reveals that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview were
altered and then total made of the marks obtained in the written test as
well as the interview. Even for a naked eye, it appears that the marks G
obtained by the petitioner were originally 24 and the same reduced to 22
by subsequent correction and totally with this correction total was also
brought down to 117 from 119."

      A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of mal-practices in the H
    572                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A selection process. The question, therefore, is: whether the principle of
    natural justice is required lo be followed by issuing notice to the selecteJ
    persons and hearing them? ll is true, as contended by Mr. Sanlosh Hedge,
    learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of
    selection of an individual his selection is not found correct in accordance
    with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be
B   given. In a case like mass mal-praclice as noted by the Tribunal, as
    extracted hercinbefore, the question emerges: whether lhe notice was
    required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to
    be heard? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication
    would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to
c   bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not
    issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given
    selection and appointment. The procedure adopted are in flagrant breach
    of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

           It is needless to mention that the General Manager of the Railways
D   should personally conduct the enquiry and find persons who are respon-
    sible for this mal-practice and take appropriate disciplinary action :'gainst
    those persons and submit the result of the report of the action to this Court
    expeditiously_

           The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No. costs.
E
    R.P.                                                       Appeal dismissed.