Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Order Cancelling Railway Selections for Mass Malpractice in Written Test and Interview. Notice to Selected Candidates Not Required Where Fabrication Evident and Procedure Violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution.

Civil appeal by special leave against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, which had cancelled railway selections for six posts of chargemen 'B' Grade due to mass malpractice and fabrication in the selection process.

The appellants, selected candidates, sought to set aside the Tribunal's orders and restore their selection and appointment, contending that they were not given notice or opportunity of hearing before cancellation.

The Tribunal had found mass malpractices in the selection process including alteration of marks in answer books and interview tabulation. The appellants challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that principles of natural justice were violated as no notice was issued to them before invalidating their selection.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 137/93 dated October 10, 1994 and Review Application No. 7/95 dated March 20, 1996, had held that there were mass malpractices in the selection process and cancelled the selection without issuing notice to the selected persons.

Whether principles of natural justice require issuance of notice and hearing to selected persons before cancellation of their selection when selection process is vitiated by mass malpractice and fabrication of marks. Whether the selection procedure adopted was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Appellants argued that in the case of selection of an individual, if his selection is not found correct in accordance with law, necessarily a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in not issuing notice and hearing the selected persons before cancelling the selection.

In cases of mass malpractice in a selection process, where the record discloses alteration and fabrication of marks, the principles of natural justice do not require issuance of notice to the selected persons before cancellation of their selection. Issuing notice would be an empty formality because fabrication would either not be known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt. A selection procedure vitiated by such malpractice is in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appropriate authority is directed to conduct a disciplinary enquiry and take action against those responsible.

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 Selection Board. In a case like mass mal-practice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges: whether the 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 bear the brunt. 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 should personally conduct the enquiry and find persons who are responsible for this mal-practice and take appropriate disciplinary action against those persons and submit the result of the report of the action to this Court expeditiously.

Pursuant to advertisement No. 6/92 for filling up six posts of chargemen 'B' Grade in Mechanical Electrical Division, a selection process was conducted. The selection was questioned before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 137/93. The Tribunal called for the record and on perusal found mass malpractices including alterations in answer books, use of a different examiner for one answer book, and alteration of interview marks. The Tribunal passed an order dated October 10, 1994 and dismissed Review Application No. 7/95 on March 20, 1996, cancelling the selection without issuing notice to the selected persons. The selected candidates filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court, leave was granted, resulting in Civil Appeal No. 9158 of 1996. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on May 8, 1996.

• Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 16