Allahabad High Court
Bhamar Singh And 16 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136026 Reserved on 05.08.2025 Delivered on 12.08.2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18790 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bhamar Singh And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is second round of litigation. Petitioners have earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 4976 of 2014, which was allowed vide judgment dated 18.05.2023 and a liberty was granted to Secretary, Local Self Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to petitioners.
2. In pursuance of above judgment, opportunity of hearing was provided and a fresh order was passed, however, claim of petitioners was again rejected, i.e., no interference was called in the order whereby entire selection process was cancelled.
3. The Court is benefited with earlier judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court and the relevant facts of this case are extracted from said judgment and mentioned hereinafter:
“2. An advertisement was issued for filling up seventeen posts of driver (Lorry, Truck Tractors), one post of Junior Fitter and seven posts of Cleaners. Pursuant to said advertisement, the petitioners applied for being considered for the post of driver.
3. The petitioners were declared successful in the selection as driver in the office of the respondent no.4. Consequently, the petitioners had been issued appointment letters dated 07.07.2008. The petitioners pursuant to the appointment letters joined.
4. It appears that there was a complaint with regard to malpractices committed in the selection process. Consequently, preliminary enquiry was conducted in which it was found that the selection committee committed malpractices and a number of irregularities in making the selection. Therefore, the disciplinary actions against the members of the selection committee were initiated. It transpires from the record that against some of the members of the selection committee, the disciplinary proceeding concluded and they had been awarded punishment whereas against some of the members, the disciplinary proceedings are pending.
5. Based on the said preliminary report, the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow passed an order dated 06.01.2014 holding that since the entire selection process was vitiated on account of the irregularities committed by the selection committee, therefore, the appointments made on the basis of recommendation of the said selection committee is also vitiated. Consequently, he directed for cancellation of appointments of the persons selected in the said selection proceedings. Consequent upon the order dated 06.01.2014, the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Agra passed an order dated 09.01.2014 terminating the services of the petitioners as well as cleaner and junior fitter also.
6. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order to the extent it terminates the services of the petitioners who had been engaged as driver.”
4. The observations and conclusions made in aforesaid judgment, being relevant, are also mentioned hereinafter:
“9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The facts emanate from the record are that the petitioners pursuant to the advertisements dated 06.06.2008 & 07.06.2008 applied for being considered for appointment on the post of driver. They participated in the selection proceeding and the selection committee found them suitable and fit for being appointed as driver. On recommendation of the selection committee, they had been issued appointment letters.
11. All of a sudden, the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Agra by order dated 09.01.2014 in compliance of the order dated 06.01.2014 of the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, passed an order terminating the services of the petitioners.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been selected and they have continued in employment for about six years. In such view of the fact, the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated without following due procedure of law and the principles of natural justice.
13. In the instant case, the specific averments have been made by the petitioners from paragraphs 46 to 50 of the writ petition that without conducting any enquiry and giving any notice and opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. These factual averments from paragraphs 46 to 50 of the writ petition have not been categorically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit rather they have stated that the entire selection process was marred by corruption, and once, the selection process was vitiated, the appointments made on the basis of said selection were also vitiated.
14. This Court may note that the law on the point that the services of an employee who has been appointed in accordance with the rules cannot be dispensed with except following due procedure of law, is settled by series of judgements of this Court as well as the Apex Court.
15. In the instant case, no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents before passing the termination order. The preliminary enquiry report, on the basis of which, the order dated 06.01.2014 has been passed was not supplied to the petitioner. Even the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners so as to enable them to demonstrate that the selection was fair. As the orders impugned entail civil consequence, therefore, the opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners before passing the orders impugned.
16. In such view of the fact, the orders dated 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014 are set aside with liberty to the respondent no.1-Secretary, Local Self Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
17. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits with no order as to cost.”
5. In pursuance of above order, all petitioners were granted opportunity of hearing and Chief Secretary by impugned order dated 10.10.2023 reached to a conclusion that petitioners were not able to submit any explanation or reply that what was the error in cancelling entire recruitment process on basis of various irregularities committed and pointed out by Inquiry Committee. For reference the irregularities, in brief, pointed out in inquiry report dated 29.11.2008, as mentioned in impugned order, are reproduced hereinafter:
“(i) नगर निगम, आगरा में ट्रक / ट्रैक्टर / लारी ड्राइवर, क्लीनर तथा जूनियर फिटर के पदों पर भर्ती हेतु गठित चयन समिति की दिनांक 03.07.2008 को आयोजित बैठक में शैक्षिक योग्यता जूनियर हाईस्कूल के कुल 10 अंक निर्धारित किये गये, जिसे दर किनार कर प्राप्तांक प्रतिशत के आधार पर अभ्यर्थियों को मनुमुताबिक अंक दिये गये।
(ii) ट्रक / ट्रैक्टर/लारी ड्राइवर अंक तालिका कमांक-61 पर अंकित आवेदक श्री अमजद खाँ पुत्र श्री शब्बीर खों, निवासी 61/79, रसूलपुर सरायें ख्वाजा, आगरा व क्रमांक-69 पर अंकित श्री फिरोज खाँ पुत्र श्री शब्बीर खाँ, निवासी 61/79, रसूलपुर, सराय ख्वाजा, आगरा का चयन किया गया है, जो आपस में भाई थे।
(iii) ट्रक / ट्रैक्टर/लारी ड्राइवर संकलित अंक शीट के अनुसार अनुक्रमांक-14 पर अंकित श्री दीपक कुमार पुत्र श्री अशोक कुमार को श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा कोई अंक नहीं दिया गया है। जबकि श्री कासिम रजा एवं डॉ. रवीन्द्र चौधरी द्वारा अंक दिये गये हैं। इसी तरह अनुक्रमांक-26, 27, 29, 68, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 127, 128, 131, 135, 137, 142, 152, 157, 161, 163, 171, 172, 188, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205, 211, 213, 214, 216, 218, 220, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 233, 235, 237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 246, 250, 252, 255, 256, 335 व 426 पर अंकित अभ्यर्थियों को अंक नहीं दिये गये जबकि भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह सदस्य चयन समिति ने उक्त अभ्यर्थियों को अंक दिये गये हैं। उक्त के अतिरिक्त श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा अनुक्रमांक-35, 36, 184, 373 व 419 को अंक दिये गये हैं, उपरोक्त अभ्यर्थी एक ही चयन समिति के सदस्यों के सम्मुख उक्त अभ्यर्थी उपस्थित हुए परन्तु किसी अभ्यर्थी को अंक दिये गये किसी को नहीं, जो एक सन्देहास्पद स्थिति है।
(iv) श्री सुरेश चन्द्र, सदस्य चयन समिति की अंकशीट के अनुसार 330 अभ्यर्थी उपस्थित हुए तथा 101 अभ्यर्थी अनुपस्थित रहे, परन्तु डॉ. रवीन्द्र चौधरी की अंकशीट के अनुसार 328 अभ्यर्थी उपस्थिति हुए तथा 103 अभ्यर्थी अनुपस्थित पाये गये। उक्त से प्रतीत होता है कि किसी विशेष को लाभ पहुँचाने के उद्देश्य से फर्जी अंकशीट लगायी गयी है।
(v) क्लीनर के पद पर चयन हेतु तैयार की गयी संकलित अंकतालिका के अनुसार कमांक-520 पर अभ्यर्थियों को अंक नहीं दिये गये, जबकि कुछ सदस्यों द्वारा अंक दिये गये हैं।
(vi) कमांक-81 पर अंकित श्री विशेष गुप्ता पुत्र श्री हरीशंकर गुप्ता को श्री श्याम सिंह यादव नगर आयुक्त अध्यक्ष द्वारा 62 अंक दिये गये हैं, जबकि उन्हें श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा अनुपस्थित दर्शाया गया है।
(vii) कमांक-82 पर अंकित श्री नरेन्द्र सिंह पुत्र श्री लक्ष्मी नारायण को श्री श्याम सिंह यादव, नगर आयुक्त अध्यक्ष द्वारा अनुपस्थित दर्शाया गया जबकि श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा उन्हें 57 अंक दिये गये।
(viii) कमांक-339 पर अंकित चन्द्रजीत सिंह पुत्र श्री योगेन्द्र सिंह को श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा अनुपस्थित दर्शाया गया, जबकि डॉ. रवीन्द्र चौधरी ने उन्हें 57 अंक दिये।
(ix) कमांक-411 पर अंकित श्री रेश्रमि कुमार पुत्र श्री राकेश कुमार को श्री भूपेन्द्र सिंह ने 56 अंक दिये, जबकि श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा उन्हें अनुपस्थित दर्शाया गया।
(x) जूनियर फिटर के पद पर चयन हेतु श्री सुरेश चन्द्र द्वारा अभ्यर्थियों को शैक्षिक योग्यता / प्राविधिक योग्यता के एक समान अंक नहीं दिये गये, जबकि चयन समिति के सदस्यगण / अध्यक्ष द्वारा दिनांक 03.07.2008 को आयोजित बैठक में एक रणनीति तैयार की गयी थी।
(xi) संकलित अंक तालिका के कमांक-1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27 व 29 (कुल 12 आवेदकों) का साक्षात्कार लेकर अंक दिये गये हैं व श्री श्याम सिंह यादव, अध्यक्ष, चयन समिति ने कमांक-1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23 व 25 (कुल 09 आवेदकों) तथा डॉ. रवीन्द्र चौधरी, श्री कासिम रजा व श्री भूपेन्द्र सिंह, सदस्यगण ने कमांक-1, 4, 5, 12, 17, 20, 23 व 25 (कुल 08 आवेदको) का साक्षात्कार लेकर अंक दिये गये हैं। सभी अभ्यर्थी चयन समिति के सम्मुख उपस्थित हुए अतः उपस्थित अभ्यर्थियों की संख्या समाना होनी चाहिये थी, जो सही नहीं पायी गयी।
(xii) उक्त के अतिरिक्त श्री कासिम रजा, सदस्य चयन समिति की व्यक्तिगत सीट के अनुसार कमशः 10, 11, 17, 26, 27, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 69, 70, 72, 93, 143, 145, 186, 189, 261, 262, व 412 पर अंकित अभ्यर्थियों के अंक के योग्य गलत पाये गये, जबकि उक्त में से कमांक-10, 60, 61, 69, 189 के अभ्यर्थियों का चयन पर नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किये गये, जिससे स्पष्ट है कि कपटपूर्ण तरीके से गलत अंक योग्य कर उक्त 05 अभ्यर्थियों को लाभ पहुँचाया गया।
(xiii) उक्त के अतिरिक्त श्री कासिम रजा द्वारा अपनी अंकशीट के कमांक-50, 80, 120, 335, 489, 513, 514 पर अंकित अभ्यर्थियों के सम्मुख पहचान चिन्ह लगाया गया या ओवर राइटिंग की गयी। श्री कासिम रजा की अंक तालिका के अनुसार उक्त अभ्यर्थियों का ही चयन हुआ है। इस प्रकार श्री कासिम रजा द्वारा अभ्यर्थियों को अनुचित लाभ दिये जाने हेतु पूर्व से ही इंगित कर लेने तथा आवश्यकतानुसार ओवर राइटिंग कर अंक बढाने की स्थिति दृष्टिगोचर हुई।
(xiv) संकलित अंक तालिका के अनुक्रमांक-35, 36, 68, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 135, 137, 142, 152, 157, 161, 163, 171, 172, 184, 188, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205, 211, 213, 214, 216, 218, 220, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 233, 235, 237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 246, 250, 252, 255, 255, 335 पर अंकित अभ्यर्थियों को अंक नहीं दिये गये, जबकि कमांक-26, 27, 29, 373, 419, 426 पर अंकित अभ्यर्थियों को अंक दिये गये हैं। उपरोक्त अभ्यर्थी एक ही चयन समिति के सम्मुख उपस्थित हुए, परन्तु श्री कासिम रजा द्वारा किसी अभ्यर्थी को अंक दिये गये तथा किसी अभ्यर्थी को अंक नहीं दिये गये। अतः चयन की प्रश्नंगत कार्यवाही संदेहास्पद है।
(xv) उक्त के अतिरिक्त ट्रक / ट्रैक्टर/लारी ड्राइवर के चयन की श्री भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह, सदस्य चयन समिति की व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट के कमांक-3, 10, 60, 61, 69, 167, 174, 189, 222, 224, 259, 275, 305, 318, 328, 399, व 427 अर्थात कुल 17 आवेदकों को ही अंक दिये गये, संकलित शीट पर 195 आवेदकों को अंक दिये गये हैं। उक्त 17 अभ्यर्थियों का चयन किया गया है। श्री भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह, सदस्य चयन समिति की अंक तालिका व संकलित अंक तालिका में भिन्नता पायी गयी। इस प्रकार श्री भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह, सदस्य चयन समिति द्वारा उक्त अभ्यर्थियों को अनियमित लाभ पहुँचाने की कार्यवाही की गयी। संकलित अंक तालिका के कमांक-1, 4, 5, 12, 17, 20, 23 व 25 (कुल 08 अभ्यर्थियों) का साक्षात्कार लेकर श्री भूपेन्द्र सिंह, सदस्य चयन समिति द्वारा अंक दिये गये और श्री श्याम सिंह यादव, अध्यक्ष, चयन समिति ने कमांक-01, 05, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23 व 25 (कुल 09 अभ्यर्थियों) को अंक दिये। सभी अभ्यर्थी एक ही चयन समिति के समक्ष उपस्थित हुए थे। अतः उपस्थित अभ्यर्थियों की संख्या समान होनी चाहिये थी। इस प्रकार चयन की कार्यवाही संदिग्ध है।”
6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, has made following submissions:
(I) The observations and findings returned by Coordinate Bench in judgment dated 18.05.2023 were not complied by respondents.
(II) Opportunity of hearing granted by respondents subsequent to aforesaid judgment was an eye wash since petitioners were not supplied adverse materials so that they could reply to alleged irregularities.
(III) Petitioners before this Court were appointed as Drivers and inquiry report is mixed so far as procedure for appointment of Truck, Tractor and Lorry Drivers as well as Cleaners and Junior Fitters are concerned. Therefore, there is no clarity, whether there was any irregularity in the case of petitioners’ selection. In inquiry report or in impugned order no allegation is made that petitioners have committed any irregularities as well as petitioner’s selection was tainted.
(IV) Petitioners have claimed that their selection was clear and fair and even in case selection process of some other candidates was irregular and tainted, their case could be distinguished.
(V) Learned Senior Advocate refers following paragraphs of writ petition in support of his submissions:
“66. That in passing the order impugned the State Government even fails to take into account that the several points enumerated in the report extracted in the said order do not pertain to the selection for the post of driver or do not pertain to the selection and appointment of the individual petitioners.
67. That the first objection extracted from the report dated 29.11.2008 is an objection which is totally irrelevant. A perusal of the advertisement dated 06.06.2008/ 07.06.2008 would demonstrate the absence of any such condition that the selection would be based upon marks secured in the Junior High School examination.
68. That the objection so taken in the order impugned is based upon no material whatsoever.
69. That the further objection with regard to the two persons selected for the post of driver being brothers is wholly irrelevant and cannot be the basis for raising objection against the selection proceedings.
70. That further objections specified in the enquiry report pertaining to Deepak Kumar son of Ashok Kumar, Vishesh Gupta son of Hari Shankar Gupta, Narendra Singh son of Laxmi Narayan, Chandra Deep Singh son of Yogendra Singh and Reshmi Kumar son of Rakesh Kumar has no relevance to the selection for the post of driver and none of the said persons were amongst the persons selected or appointed as driver.
71. That further objection mentioned in sub para (v) and sub para (x) pertains to selection for the post of Cleaner and Junior Fitter having no relevance whatsoever to the petitioners.
72. That further objection taken in the enquiry report are in fact misconceived objections based upon minor mistakes in maintaining the record at the level of the respondents. None of the said objection can be treated as an objection vitiated the entire selection or justifying the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners.
73. That it is in no manner permissible for the respondents to attempt to pickhole upon perusal of selection proceedings in the manner the same has been done.
74. That even otherwise it is more apparent that the entire impugned orders have come into existence on account of unwarranted interference by Additional District Magistrate (Administration) who has not been conferred with any authority to interfere with the selection proceedings in Nagar Nigam.
75. That the circumstances in which individual members of the selection committee may not have awarded marks to a given individual is not known to the petitioners. There may be several such contingencies in which the individual members of the selection committee may have not thought fit for awarding any marks to a given applicant dependent upon the exercise of their discretionary powers.
76. That it is settled legal position that with regard to the allegation of malfeasance in selection proceedings. All endeavour should be made segregating the tainted portion of the selection from the untainted portion and the entire selection proceedings are not required to be cancelled in the manner, the same has been done in the present case.
77. That according to the State Government itself the alleged irregularities mentioned in the enquiry report have been treated to be all minor nature as is apparent from the fact that based upon the recommendations of the same committee, disciplinary proceedings shoot initiated against three members of the selection committee. The disciplinary proceedings so initiated stood dropped against one member while with regard to remaining two members against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, the same stood concluded by withholding one increment.
78. That the orders so passed with regard to the members of the selection committee is itself indicative of the minor nature of the alleged regularity determined by the State Government itself against such officers.”
7. Per contra, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General/ Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondents, submitted that selection was made in the year 2008 and petitioners were appointed on their respective posts. However, in 2014 it was found that there were large scale irregularities and, therefore, a Three Members Committee was constituted, who submitted a report indicating separately the irregularities committed with regard to selection of Truck, Tractor and Lorry Drivers as well as Cleaners and Junior Fitters. He referred the following part of inquiry report which was with regard to irregularities committed in appointment of Truck Tractor and Lorry Drivers, i.e., with regard to petitioners:
“01. चयन समिति के समस्त सदस्यगण द्वारा व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट पर तो हस्ताक्षर किये गये है लेकिन संकलित अंकशीट पर श्री सुरेश चन्द्र, अधिशासी अभियन्ता, कासिम रजा, सहा०नगर आयुक्त, भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह, मुख्य नगर लेखा (समस्त सदस्य चयन समिति) तथा श्री श्याम सिंह यादव, अध्यक्ष वयन समिति द्वारा ही हस्ताक्षर किये गये है। डा० रविन्द्र चौधरी, पशुचिकित्साधिकारी व एस०पी० यादव, सहा० परिवहन सम्भागीय अधिकारी के हस्ताक्षर संकलित शीट पर नहीं पाये गये है। नियमानुसार संकलित शीट पर चयन समिति के समस्त सदस्यगण व अध्यक्ष के हस्ताक्षर होने चहिये।
02. डा० रविन्द्र चौधरी, पशुचिकित्साधिकारी जो चयन समिति में अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग के सदस्य हैं। ने आयुक्त, आगरा मण्डल, आगरा को सम्बोधित अपने शिकायती पत्र दिनांक 12.09.2008 में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसने ट्रक / ट्रैक्टर / लोरी ड्राइवर की अंकशीट पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं किये है। इसकी पुष्टि में उन्होंने स्वंय जाँच समिति के सम्मुख आकर अपना लिखित बयान तथा शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया है जिसमें स्पष्ट उल्लेख किया गया है कि उनकी व्यक्तिगत अंक शीट पर उनके हस्ताक्षर फर्जी रूप से बनाये गये है। उनके द्वारा जिस अंकशीट पर हस्ताक्षर किये गये थे वो पूरी अंक शीट बदल दी गई है। इस प्रकार शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दिये गये बयान व शपथ-पत्र से व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट फर्जी रूप से हस्ताक्षर करने की अनियमितता स्पष्ट होती है।
03. श्री भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह, मुख्य नगर लेखा परीक्षक, (सदस्य चयन समिति) के द्वारा तैयार की गयी अंक शीट का गहन अध्ययन / परीक्षण करने पर पाया गया कि उनके द्वारा कमांक 03, 10, 60, 61, 69, 167, 174 189, 222, 224, 259, 275, 305, 318, 328, 399 व 427 कुल 17 आवेदको को ही अंक दिये गये है, जबकि संकलित शीट पर 195 आवेदकों को अंक दिये गये है। यहाँ यह विशेष उल्लेखनीय है कि जिन 17 उपर्युक्त आवेदकों को अंक दिये गये है उन्हीं का चयन किया गया है तथा चयनोपरान्त नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किये गये है। जबकि साक्षात्कार चयन समिति के समक्ष उपस्थित समस्त आवेदकों को अंक दिये जाने चाहिये थे। व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट व संकलित शीट का मिलान करने पर यह तथ्य प्रकाश में आया कि व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट पर लिखे गये व संकलित शीट पर लिखे गये अंकों में भिन्नता है। उदाहरणार्थ क्रमांक 10 के आवेदक श्री जयवीर सिंह पुत्र श्री भगवान सिंह को व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट पर 63 अंक दिये गये है जबकि संकलित शीट पर 46 अंक अंकित है, इससे यह प्रतीत होता है कि कदाचित व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट संकलित शीट तैयार करने के उपरान्त बनायी गयी है।
04. शैक्षिक योग्यता के अंक निर्धारण करने के लिये चयन समिति द्वारा दिनांक 03.07.2008 को बैठक आयोजित की जिसमें निर्धारित शैक्षिक योग्यता जूनियर हाई स्कूल के कुल 10 अंक का विभाजन निम्न प्रकार किया गया था :-
33 – 44 प्रतिशत – 02 अंक
45 – 59 प्रतिशत – 05 अंक
60 से अधिक पर – 10 अंक
परन्तु चयन समिति द्वारा उक्त निर्णय को दरकिनार कर प्राप्तांक प्रतिशत के आधार पर अंक न देकर मन मुताबिक अंक दिये गये है। इस प्रकार स्पष्ट है कि सभी सदस्यों की व्यक्तिगत शीट पर शैक्षिक योग्यता के अंक गलत अंकित किये गये है।
यहाँ यह तथ्य भी उल्लेख करना महत्वपूर्ण है कि डा० रविन्द्र चौधरी की मूल्यांकन शीट में 05 अभ्यर्थियों को छोड़कर अन्य आवेदकों को बिना प्राप्तांक प्रतिशत का ध्यान दिये शैक्षिक योग्यता के एक समान 10 अंक दिये गये है। इससे डा० रविन्द्र चौधरी की शिकायत को बल मिलता है कि उनके द्वारा तैयार की गयी अंकशीट बदल कर उनके फर्जी हस्ताक्षर बनाकर दूसरी अंकशीट तैयार की गयी है।
05. चयन समिति के सदस्य श्री कासिम राजा, श्री सुरेश चन्द्र एंव श्री भूपेन्द्र सिंह तथा चयन समिति के अध्यक्ष श्री श्याम सिंह यादव की अंक शीट के अनुसार 330 अभ्यर्थी उपस्थित हुये तथा 101 अभ्यर्थी अनुपस्थित रहे, परन्तु डा० रविन्द्र चौधरी की अंक शीट के अनुसार 328 अभ्यर्थी उपस्थित हुये तथा 103 अभ्यर्थी अनुपस्थित पाये गये। उक्त चयन के लिये एक ही चयन समिति थी अतः सभी सदस्यों की अंकशीट में उपस्थित एवं अनुपस्थित अभ्यर्थी की संख्या समान होनी चाहिये। इससे भी शिकायत कर्ता की इस शिकायत को बल मिलता है कि उनके द्वारा तैयार की गई अंक शीट को बदल कर फर्जी अंक शीट लगायी गई है।
06. डा० रविन्द्र चौधरी की अंकशीट के अनुसार 328 अभ्यर्थियों के द्वारा प्राप्तांको का अवलोकन करने पर यह तथ्य प्रकाश में आया कि एक अभ्यर्थी को छोड़कर अन्य सभी अभ्यर्थियों को डा०रविन्द्र चौधरी द्वारा ही अधिकतम अंक दिये है, जो अस्वाभाविक क प्रतीत होता है।
07. क्रमांक 61 पर अंकित आवेदक श्री अमजद खॉ पुत्र श्री शब्बीर खॉ निवासी 61/79, रसूलपुर सराय ख्वाजा, आगरा व कमांक 69 पर अंकित फिरोज खाँ पुत्र श्री शब्बीर खाँ निवासी 61/79, रसूलपुर सराय ख्वाजा, आगरा का चयन किया गया है जिनके पिता का नाम तथा पता समान होने से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त दोनों सगे भाईयों का चयन किया गया है।
08. चयन समिति के अध्यक्ष व 03 सदस्यगण द्वारा शैक्षिक योग्यता, अनुभव व साक्षात्कार आदि के सापेक्ष अर्थात 90 पूर्णांक में से प्राप्तांक दिये गये जबकि सहायक सम्भागीय परिवहन अधिकारी द्वारा तकनीकी व ड्राइविंग टेस्ट (10 अंक) व साक्षात्कार (50 अंक) अर्थात कुल 60 पूर्णाक में से प्राप्तांक दिये गये है, श्री सुरेश चन्द्र, ↑ अधिशासी अभियन्ता ने पूर्णाक 100 में प्राप्तांक दिये गये है, जबकि भूपेन्द्र कुमार सिंह, मुख्य नगर लेखा परीक्षक 90 पूर्णाक में से अंक दिये गये है, अतः संकलित शीट पर अंकित अभ्यर्थियों के अंक समान पूर्णाक से नहीं दिये गये है, जबकि सभी सदस्यों व अध्यक्ष के द्वारा किसी अभ्यर्थी को दिये गये अंक समान पूर्णाक में होने चाहिये थे तभी किसी अभ्यर्थी के औसत अंक निकलना सम्भव होता व मेरिट नियमानुसार होती।
10. संकलित शीट के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि अनुक्रमांक 14 दीपक कुमार पुत्र श्री अशोक कुमार को 02 सदस्यों ने साक्षात्कार में उपस्थित दर्शाकर अंक दिये है, जबकि शेष 04 सदस्यों द्वारा उन्हें कोई अंक नहीं दिये है। इसी तरह अनुक्रमांक 26, 27, 29 35, 36, 68, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 135, 137, 142, 152, 157, 161, 163, 171, 172, 184, 188, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205, 211, 213, 214, 216, 218, 220, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 233, 235, 237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 246, 250, 252, 255, 256, 335, 373, 419 व 426 के अभ्यर्थियों के मामले में भी संकलित शीट पर को भी सभी सदस्यों में अंक नहीं दिये है, जबकि एक ही चयन समिति के सदस्यों के सम्मुख यह अभ्यर्थी उपस्थित हुये परन्तु संकलित शीट पर किसी सदस्य ने अंक दिये है और किसी ने नहीं जो स्पष्ट रूप से अनियमितता को दर्शाता है।
11. चयन समिति के सदस्य श्री कासिम रजा, सहायक नगर आयुक्त की अंक शीट के कमांक 10, 11, 17, 26, 27, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 69, 70, 72, 93, 143, 145, 186, 189, 261, 262, व 412 के अभ्यर्थियों के अंक योग गलप्त पाये गये है। यहाँ यह विशेष रूप से उल्लेखनीय है कि कमांक 10, 60, 61, 69 व 189 के अभ्यार्थियों का चयन कर नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किये जा चुके हैं। उक्त गलत योग ही संकलित शीट में अंकित किया गया है, अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि अंकों के योग पर या तो ध्यान न देकर लापरवाही की है या कुछ अभ्यर्थियों को लाभ पहुंचाने के लिये योग गलत किया गया है जो चयन प्रक्रिया में बनी मेरिट को गलत सिद्ध करता है।
12. सहायक सम्भागीय परिवहन अधिकारी, आगरा ने अपनी व्यक्तिगत अंकशीट के अन्त में यह टिप्पणी अंकित की है कि लाइसेंस के सत्यापन के पश्चात् ही चयन की कार्यवाही की जाये, परन्तु ऐसा न करते हुये चयनित अभ्यर्थियों को साक्षात्कार के मात्र ‘तीन दिन पश्चात ही 07.07.2008 को नियुक्ति पत्र जारी कर दिये गये।”
8. Learned Senior Advocated also submitted that directions given by Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 18.05.2023 were completely followed.
9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be relevant to reproduce few paragraphs of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719, wherein legal position with regard to irregularities in selection process discussed at lenght:
“7. This Court in several cases has examined the question when the entire selection process should be struck down in case of irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the decisions as the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not suffer from contradictions. In Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB), (2021) 4 SCC 631 this Court observed that determining when the examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The answer lies in examining whether the irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the process. In some cases, the irregularities may border on or even constitute fraud, which severely damages the credibility and legitimacy of the process. In such cases, the only option is to cancel the result entirely. These are situations where it is difficult to separate the tainted from the untainted participants, and the irregularities are widespread, indicating a malaise or fraud that has corrupted the process. On the other hand, there are cases where only some participants have committed irregularities. In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the wrongdoers from those who adhered to the rules. The innocent should not suffer for the actions of the wrongdoers. By segregating the guilty, the selection process for the untainted candidates can proceed to its logical conclusion. This aligns with the principle of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as well as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. Care must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not unfairly penalized alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire process. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it would involve treating unequals equally. The innocent should not be punished for faults they did not commit. Finally, while the decision of the recruiting body is subject to judicial control, the body must retain a measure of discretion.
8. Sachin Kumar (supra) refers to an earlier decision of three Judges of this Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 648 where it was held that when the conduct of all examinees, or at least the vast majority, at a particular examination centre reveals the use of unfair means, it may not be necessary for the board to give individual opportunities of hearing to the candidates if the entire examination is being cancelled. This is not a case where anyone is charged with unfair means and would need to defend themselves. An examination vitiated by widespread unfair means falls into a separate category, so giving notice in individual cases is not required.
9. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that when there is a discovery of widespread unfair practices, such as the leakage of question papers or destruction of answer books, it may not be necessary to give each examinee an opportunity to be heard. While it may not be appropriate to completely whittle down the requirement of natural justice and fair play, a straitjacket formula cannot be applied when the examination was not properly conducted or when the majority of the examinees did not act as they should have. Therefore, insisting that the Board should hold a detailed inquiry into each individual case was considered incorrect. It was also observed that such an approach would delay the functioning of an autonomous body like the Board of High School and Intermediate Education.
10. In line with the above ratio, this Court in Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (1990) Supp SCC 692 has held that the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was not justified as there was no systemic flaw in the entire recruitment process, and the issue was only with regard to calling the candidates for interview. However, in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 236 the entire examination was cancelled in view of the report of mass copying and leakage of the question paper. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. (supra), the teachers did not object to the students entering the examination hall with books, indicating their complicity. It was held that the fact that some innocent students may have suffered in the given facts was inconsequential.
11. Similarly, in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another,(2003) 7 SCC 285 this Court examined a case where a Special Committee scrutinized the answer sheets of 134 successful and 184 unsuccessful candidates, identifying only 31 as involved in unfair practices. Based on this, the Court struck down the decision of the competent authority to cancel the entire recruitment process, deeming it extreme, unreasonable, and unnecessary given the circumstances. The Court applied the test of whether there were widespread, pervasive issues that had undermined the entire process and whether it was impossible to weed out those benefiting from the irregularities or illegalities.
12. In yet another decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356 this Court elucidated three principles which must be adhered to when cancelling appointments. First, there must be satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the material collected so as to enable the State to conclude that the selection process was tainted. Second, to determine whether the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process, such satisfaction should be based on a reasoned and thorough investigation conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Third, there must be sufficient material to support the conclusion that the majority of the appointments were part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt. This three-pronged test, as outlined by Sinha J., is appropriate and should be adhered to.
13. The precursor to Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) involved raids that led to the recovery of large sums of cash from the house of the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The allegations suggested that the Chairman – who served from 1996 to 2002 – had made several appointments between 1998 and 2001 for extraneous considerations, including monetary ones. The affected appellants before this Court, whose services were terminated, comprised four categories of officers selected through four recruitment examinations held between 1997 and 2001. Two FIRs came to be registered against the Chairman and other officers of the Public Service Commission. However, among the selectees, an FIR was filed only against one. In this factual background, Sinha J. drew a distinction between a proven case of mass cheating in a Board Exam and an unproven charge of corruption in the context of appointment of a civil servant. The en masse termination order setting aside several selections spread over 3-4 years was reversed. This was an unprecedented case of mass termination, with a walloping impact and consequences. Applying the threefold factual and legal test, en masse termination was set aside. In this context, it was observed that termination orders should only be issued in cases where it is found to be impossible or highly improbable to separate the tainted cases from the non-tainted ones.
14. In our considered view, the opinion expressed by Dalveer Bhandari J. in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) regarding the strict compliance with the principles of natural justice is not in line with the ratio of the earlier three Judge Bench decision in Bihar School Examination Board (supra). We would like to observe that the en masse termination in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) was based on the charge of corruption against the former Chairman, leading to the cancellation of the entire selection process and appointments, even though the charges against him had not yet been proven in a court of law.
15. Similarly, in another two Judge Bench decision in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644 this Court observed that every effort should be made to separate tainted from untainted candidates, and if it is found that segregating the tainted from untainted is possible, cancellation of the entire selection process would be incompatible with law.
16. In Chairman, All India Railways Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 614 where the decision of the Railway Recruitment Board to cancel the examination and conduct retest on the ground of malpractices involving mass copying, leakage of question paper and impersonation was struck down by the High Court, this Court – reversing the judgment of the High Court – upheld the order of the Board to cancel the examination and conduct retest. Considering the material on record, the widespread irregularities and malpractice in the first written test, and the ultimate object of fair selection, this Court upheld the finding of the Board that the test was vitiated due to mass copying, impersonation, and question paper leakage, rather than misconduct by just a few candidates. In the said facts and circumstance, the decision of the Board to cancel the selection and reconduct the examination was held to be reasonable and well-balanced.
17. In State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 217 there were allegations of large-scale malpractices involving tampering with OMR sheets. After re-evaluation and further scrutiny, the Teachers Recruitment Board found that 196 candidates had been the beneficiaries of fraudulent alteration of marks. This Court referred to the observations in Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 621 to hold that the authority of the State to maintain the purity of the examination process is unquestionable. Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai (supra) takes note of the settled dictum that the cancellation of the examination is necessary and required in cases where large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process are alleged. In this context, this Court in A. Kalaimani (supra) held that despite the inconvenience caused to the untainted candidates, a serious doubt regarding the magnitude of manipulation in the examination has to be given due weightage. It was held that the finding of the Board that there were chances of more people being involved in the manipulation of marks was a bona fide decision being taken by the Board to instil confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the selection process.
18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 743 this Court observed that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court.
19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
• When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.
• The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.
• Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.
• Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.”
11. Another relevant part of aforesaid judgment in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra), wherein the issue of delay and laches as well as natural justice was considered, is also extracted hereinafter:
“43. WBSSC and the candidates have raised pleas of estoppel, delay, and laches in filing the writ petitions. In our view, the impugned judgment correctly dismisses these pleas, relying on this Court’s judgment in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Others v. T.T Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108. The judgment distinguishes between acquiescence, delay and laches, noting that they have distinct characteristics, though the underlying principle remains one of estoppel. Laches refers to remissness or slackness, involving unreasonable delay or negligence in seeking equitable relief, which prejudices the other party. It arises from the neglect of a party to assert their right, thereby preventing them from obtaining relief. In our opinion, this bar does not apply here, as the fraud and illegalities were only uncovered in 2021 and 2022. Applying the defence of laches, which is not a statutory bar, would be contrary to equity and justice in these circumstances. The principle of acquiescence also does not apply, as it assumes knowledge of the act, followed by passive acceptance. Therefore, it introduces a new implied defence that does not fit the facts of this case. Delay, as a general principle, encompasses both laches and acquiescence, and delay is always fact-specific. In this case, where fraud was concealed, as well as a cover up was practised, these principles cannot be applied.
44. We have already partially addressed the plea of failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice while examining the applicable case law. It is also important to emphasize that, in this case, public notices were issued, and the candidates/applicants/petitioners were afforded the opportunity to inspect the data and present their arguments. In light of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked to validate the fraud that has occurred. These principles are not rigid or inflexible; rather, they must be applied with due regard to the specific facts and circumstances at hand.”
12. On basis of rival submissions and material available, the Court is of the view that petitioners before this Court have not committed any fraud and cheating or were part of irregularities as well as that petitioners were not taken any benefit of interim orders granted during earlier round of litigation, therefore, admittedly they were out of service for last many years.
13. It is well settled that a selection process should be fair and impart confidence in the candidates so that no ineligible candidate should get appointment. Selection process in question is of the year 2008 and inquiry was conducted in 2014, i.e., after six years but in case the irregularities were writ large and goes to the root of selection process which warrants cancellation of entire selection process, delay would not be a factor to support the irregularities or to support the appointments made by irregular process.
14. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of inquiry report specifically with regard to selection of petitioners, i.e., Drivers of Truck, Tractor and Lorry.
15. The first reason mentioned in inquiry report is that one of the Member of Selection Committee, Dr. Ravindra Chaudhary, has declared by way of statement on affidavit that marks sheet prepared by said Member was changed and a forged marks sheet was placed on record and he denied his signatures on it with specific contention that his signatures were forged. The aforesaid statement made on oath could not be disputed. Even learned Senior Advocate for petitioners is not able to show any document to dispute it, therefore, such declaration would definitely goes to the root of selection process.
16. The Court also takes note that in selection process numbers were given to 17 candidates but in final list numbers were given to as many as 95 candidates. The numbers given in marks sheet and in final sheet were also different. These irregularities also goes to the root of selection process and has tainted entire selection process.
17. The Court further takes note that according to answer sheet of some of the Members of Selection Committee, 330 candidates were present and 101 remained absent, however, in answer sheet of another Member, number of present candidates were 328 and number of absent candidates were 103. There is no explanation for such discrepancies.
18. The aforesaid irregularities remained uncontroverted and, as referred above, if the irregularities of such nature are writ large, it will be difficult to distinguish between fair and unfair selection and there is no illegality if entire selection is cancelled.
19. The Court also takes note that direction passed by this Court in it’s judgment dated 18.05.2023 that opportunity be given to petitioners for hearing, was complied with since admittedly opportunity of hearing was given, however, petitioners have not able to show any document or averment that such irregularities were never committed.
20. The Court cannot dispute the report of Three Members Committee being based on material and affidavit filed by Members. Aforesaid irregularities goes to the root of entire selection process, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in impugned order and entire selection was rightly cancelled.
21. As already observed, since there is no allegation that petitioners have committed any fraud or cheating, therefore, there cannot be any order for recovery of salary, if already paid to petitioners, on basis of their work.
22. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.08.2025
AK