Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the Railway Authorities’ cancellation of a duly published selection panel for Goods Guard posts under the 15% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota was unsustainable in law. The Court held that authorities are bound to comply with RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I, which mandate prior notice before cancelling declared results. It further held that a selection panel can be scrapped only for well-founded reasons, striking down cancellation done merely on vague “administrative” grounds.

The dispute arose from a selection process initiated by the Railway Authorities through a notification dated 01.12.2021 for appointment to the post of Goods Guard under the 15% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota. Permanent employees of the Railway’s Non-Ministerial Operation and Commercial Department, including the applicants, participated and were found eligible. A panel of 27 successful candidates was published on 08.12.2022, which included the applicants. Following medical examinations, they commenced requisite training on 20.03.2023.

Also Read: Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Execution of Arbitral Award Cannot Be Deferred Merely Due to Pendency of Section 37 Appeal Without Interim Stay: Supreme Court

While undergoing training, the panel was cancelled on 17.04.2023 by the Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO), citing “administrative account” and referring to a vigilance enquiry. A notice dated 12.04.2023 was issued, which the authorities claimed as providing an opportunity of hearing. A subsequent “speaking order” dated 23.05.2023 reiterated the earlier cancellation. The applicants challenged these actions before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set aside the orders of 17.04.2023 and 23.05.2023, holding that no cogent reasons were provided.

The Railways contended that the vigilance report mandated cancellation to preserve the sanctity of the examination. They relied on a prior decision approving cancellation in cases of irregularities. The applicants argued that the cancellation violated RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I, which require prior notice and reasons before cancellation. They further noted that no vigilance report or evidence was produced as required under Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The Tribunal directed reinstatement but also suggested segregating tainted and untainted candidates, which was later challenged.

The Bench recorded that the communication of 12.04.2023 “is nothing more than an intimation regarding cancellation of the promotion process/ panel. The same cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be an opportunity of hearing.” It further observed that the alleged investigation report was neither shared nor did the communication specify irregularities, nor did it solicit replies.

The Court noted that the office order of 17.04.2023 “does not disclose any reasons whatsoever. The office order directs cancellation of the panel dated 08.12.2022, by stating that the same is being cancelled on ‘administrative account’.”

It was further observed that the authorities had not complied with RBE No. 192 of 2019, which states: “whenever selection proceedings are required to be cancelled after declaration of result due to procedural irregularities/malpractices, due notice should be given to the candidates declared selected.”

The Bench also stated that the subsequent order of 23.05.2023 “is unsustainable, being devoid of any reasons whatsoever. It is by now settled law that assigning of reasons is required by authority. It is only if reasons are assigned that a link can be established between the consideration and the conclusion.”

The Court recorded that the Railways’ reliance on the precedent in Dileshwar Kumar was misplaced, since “in the present case no reasons whatsoever have been assigned. Cancellation of the process is sought to be justified by making a vague and general assertion that it is on ‘administrative account’.”

It further stated that the non-production of the vigilance advice violated Rule 12(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: “The omission to disclose the document in support of averments in the reply only leads to a presumption that the uncorroborated averment, regarding advice of vigilance is devoid of any substance and unacceptable.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court | Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Cannot Be Denied for Husband’s Unemployment | Mere Inability to Adjust With In-Laws Leading Wife to Live Separately Is Not Mental Cruelty

It stated: “Such an occasion could arise only if any reason whatsoever was assigned with reference to any specific malpractice, or irregularity in the promotion process. Since no reasons whatsoever have been assigned… there is no parameter, based on which such a segregation, or weeding out exercise may be undertaken by the authorities.”

Accordingly, the Bench held: “We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal, limited to the directions contained in paragraph 13.1 of order dated 14.05.2024 passed in O.A. No. 746 of 2023. The WPCT No. 204 of 2024 filed by the Railway Authority assailing the Tribunal’s order is dismissed. The WPCT No. 242 of 2024 filed by the applicants is allowed in the above terms.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners (W.P.C.T. 204 of 2024): Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, Mr. Subrata Santra
For the Respondents (W.P.C.T. 204 of 2024): Mr. Soumya Majumder, Senior Advocate; Mr. Indranath Mitra

For the Petitioners (W.P.C.T. 242 of 2024): Mr. Soumya Majumder, Senior Advocate; Mr. Indranath Mitra
For the Respondents (W.P.C.T. 242 of 2024): Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das; Mr. Subrata Santra

Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Anup Mondal and Others; Anup Mondal and Others v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.C.T. 204 of 2024 with W.P.C.T. 242 of 2024
Bench: Justice Madhuresh Prasad, Justice Supratim Bhattacharya