W.P.(C)/1989/2014 of VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 20.11.2014

Pronounced on: 24.12.2014

W.P.(C) 1989/2014, C.M. NO.4155/2014

SH. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA AND ORS...... Petitioners

Through: Sh. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal andMs. Kritika Sharma, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh.C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI.

W.P.(C) 2001/2014, C.M. NO.4179/2014

SH. MANJEET SHARMA AND ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through: Sh. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Sh.Kewal Singh Ahuja and Ms. Prarthana Sampath,Advocates, for petitioner nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 28 and30 to 54.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh.C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI.

W.P.(C) 2013/2014, C.M. NO.4200/2014

GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION..... Petitioner

Through: Sh. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal andMs. Kritika Sharma, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh.C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI.

Sh. S.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Sh. P.S. Singhand Sh. Robin George, for intervener on behalf of87 employees of Mayapuri.

W.P.(C) 3410/2014, C.M. NO.7023/2014

DHARAM VIR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate.versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through : Sh. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Sh. S.S.Rai, Sh. Rohan Gupta and Ms. Shalini Aggarwal,Advocates.

+YOGESH KUMAR

W.P.(C) 3745/2014

..... Petitioner

Through: Sh. Anil. K. Sharma, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Sh. Saqib, Advocate, for Resp. No.1.

W.P.(C) 4952/2014, C.M. NOS. 9915-9917/2014

SH. PRAKASH PANT

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate.

versus

THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS...... Respondents

Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Ms.Nishtha Sikroria, Advocates, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1.The Petitioners challenge the orders of the Principal Bench, CentralAdministrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09-03-2014 in OA Nos.1909/2012,1554/2012, 1848/2012, 2272/2012, 579/2013 and order dated 23-05-2014 inOA No.1621/2013.Their applications questioning the orders of therespondent-Union of India represented through the Government of IndiaPress (hereafter called "UOI") were dismissed.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India Pressadvertised vacancies in various posts - (Group B, Group and Group D).These included the posts of Assistant Binders, Carpenters, Assistant PlateMaker, Machine Attendant Offset; Machine Assistant, besides Group D(Laborers) posts. The vacancies were advertised on different dates, inrelation to availability of vacancies in the different centers (Govt. PressMaya Puri, Nilokheri, Aligarh and Mainpuri). These advertisements wereissued - as noticed earlier, on different dates. After screening the responses,the recruitment process was undertaken. In the case of Group posts, the

selection process included trade tests besides interview; in the case of GroupD posts, it included interviews. Different selection committees wereconstituted by the Central Government in respect of the differentunits/Presses. In the case of individual Presses too, depending upon thenumber of eligible applicants who had to be examined or considered, two ormore selection panels were constituted. All those whose names figured inthe select list were informed about their selection and were asked tocomplete formalities such as medical test, police verification, etc. On thebasis of their merit in the select list, some applicants were issuedappointment letters and allowed to join. complaint was received by theCentral Government, thereafter, alleging large scale irregularities in therecruitment process. On 03.04.2008, decision was taken at the Ministry levelto stall the process of acceptance of joining reports by the selectedcandidates, till the investigation was complete.

3.Three candidates, Dharamvir Singh, A.K. Sharma and Harish Kumar,waited for while. Since there was no development, they filed applicationsbefore the CAT. Dharam Vir Singh's application,i.e. O.A. No.377/2010; wasdisposed of by order dated 3.2.2010 directing the Central Government todecide the matter in terms of the earlier orders dated 7.12.2009 passed inO.A. No.1194/2009. The Central Government, thereafter, passed ordersdated 14.7.2010 stating that it had decided not to appoint Dharam Vir Singhto the post. In these circumstances, he approached CAT in O.A.No.3264/2010 challenging the order dated 14.7.2010 by which he wasdenied the appointment. This was allowed by CAT, which directed theCentral Government to appoint the applicant before it. Similar directions

were given in respect of the others, i.e A.K. Sharma and Harish Kumar intheir applications; the CAT held that since many others were allowed to joinand were working, fate of the applicants would be the same as those persons,and they would sink or swim with them. The orders of the CAT werechallengedbeforethisCourtinW.P.(C)4745/2011,5825/2011&5962/2011 by the Central Government.

4.Before this Court, the Central Government had argued that an inquiryinto the matter had been ordered which had been completed. report wassubmitted by the inquiring authority, namely, Chief Vigilance Officer of theMinistry of Urban Development. The order dated 13.12.2010 was shown tothe CAT, which was issued following the report of the inquiry. This court, inits order disposing of the writ petitions noticed and directed as follows:

"In the inquiry, following irregularities in the selection were

found:

(i) Directorate of Printing had authorized/approved only 67 poststo be filled as Direct Recruitment vacancies/essential vacancies.Out of this, 14 posts were not advertised. Against the remaining 53(67-14) posts, the Press advertised/notified 179 posts. The overallexcess of posts advertised is 136 (179-53).

(ii) Approval of competent authority for advertisement of 136excess vacancies as compared to 67 approved in relaxation of banorders on direct recruitment has not been made available by theGIP, Aligarh/Directorate of Printing during the course ofinvestigation.

(iii) In total the Recruitment Board recommended 133 candidatesfor various posts out of which appointments were made in respectof only 58.

(iv) 49 recruitments were made against 17 approved posts inAssistant Binder category. In addition 9 recruitments were madein the category of Carpenter, Assistant Plate Maker, M/CAttendant Officer and M/C Assistant Offset even though no postsexisted in these categories. As result, the total number ofrecruitment against unapproved posts was 41 (Asstt. Binder - 32,Carpenter - 1, Asstt. Palte Maker - 2, M/C Attendant Offset - 5 andM/C Assistant - 1).

(v) Out of 133 candidates recommended for appointment, 27 wereagainst approved posts and 106 against unapproved posts.

(vi) The candidates appeared for interviews in respect of“Labourers” category in two spells, first on 22, 23 & 24 Februaryand second on 28th and 30th March, 2008. Neither markingsheet nor signed recommendations by members of the DPC whichconducted the interviews from 22nd to 24th February, 2008 wereavailable. Subsequently composition of the Committee waschanged by replacing two members which later conducted theinterviews on 28th and 30th March, 2008.

However, the final list of the selected candidates was preparedafter the conclusion of the interviews in the second spell withoutmarking sheet or signed recommendations by the Committeewhich conducted the interviews in the first spell. It is not clear onwhat basis the members of the Recruitment Board who have puttheir signatures on the final list of selected candidates have doneso. The allegation of manipulation in the selection of candidatesis, therefore, established on the basis of documentary evidenceavailable on record. The members of the Recruitment Board whohave put their signatures on the final list of selected candidatesshould be held responsible.

(vii) On the basis of the documentary evidence, it can beconcluded that the allegation that Sh. Ravinder Singh appointedon the post of Labourer is son of Sh. Lal Singh, who representedas Member SC in the Recruitment Board constituted for Labourercategory, is true. Sh. Lal Singh did not furnish the certificate to theeffect that none of his family members was candidate for the post

of Labourer 5 of 17 which is mandatory condition for all themembers of the Recruitment Board.

(viii) In view of the documentary evidence available on record, theallegation of irregular appointments in the inter-change categorye.g. applicant applied for Labourer post selected for the post ofSafaiwala etc. is established in four cases.

(ix) The allegation that irregular appointment of Sh.Yashpal Singhas Offset Machine Attendant has been made without requisiteexperience certificate is sustainable on the basis of documentaryevidence on record.

(x) Based on the papers received, it is established that theapplication of Sh. Manjeet Sharma was considered for which thedocuments were received subsequent to the last date.

(xi) On the basis of facts available on records, the allegation ofirregular appointment is Sh. Rajveer son of Sh. Nand Kishore asCarpentar is established.

(xii)Onscrutinyofthedetailsofcandidateswhowererecommended for various posts by the Recruitment Board, it hasbeen observed that in respect of 24 candidates in Labourercategory, letters for appointment were issued that were not as perthe merit list and the selection was random. The remaining 15candidates out of 39 were not issued the offers of appointment.

(xiii) The verification of character and antecedents of the selectedcandidates in respect of Asstt. Binder (49), Asstt. Plate Maker (2),M/C Asstt. Offset (1), M/C Attendant Offset (5) and Carpenter (1)was done after their joining in the Press.

(xiv) Prima facie the allegation of favouritism/nepotism appears tobe sustainable. However, based on the documents and evidenceavailable, it is not possible to ascertain who are the agents of theManager, GIP, Aligarh responsible for manipulating theseselections."

-------------------

------------------

13. We had summoned the record and we find that after the CVOhad submitted the report, the same has been discussed at variouslevels. The opinion of the Ministry of Law is also taken. There is anote dated 18.11.2011 by an official citing the opinion of theMinistry of Law and proposing, namely, accepting the findings ofthe report of investigation of complaint; setting aside the processof recruitment in all the Presses; discharging of the appointedcandidates on the basis of said vitiated selection process;identifyingofficersinvolvedinirregularitiesandinitiatingdisciplinary action against them and the manner in which suchvacancies should be filled up in future to avoid recurrence of suchmalpractices. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law andthe factual position emerging from the records, we are of the viewthat directions given by the tribunal are unsustainable. We, thus,set aside the impugned orders directing appointment of therespondents in these writ petitions allowing these writ petitions. Atthe same time, we substitute the order of the tribunal with thefollowing directions:

"Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from thedate of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely,report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would betaken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if forsome reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and tocontinue with the existing appointments then the respondentsherein shall also be appointed."

14. We may make it clear that we have not touched upon thequestion as to whether findings of the CVO that the selectionprocess is vitiated because of irregularities stated therein iscorrect or not. It is not even necessary to do so as all those whoare appointed are not before us and we cannot take any view inthe matter in their absence. Therefore, needless to mention, incase the petitioners decide to scrap the selection process and theservices of those appointed are terminated, they shall be withintheir right to challenge the action of the Government on its ownmerits and as per law."

5.After the above remand, the Central Government issued an order,rejecting the candidature of the present petitioners- who had been by thenappointed and were working in the Government Presses at Mayapuri, Delhi,Nilokheri and Aligarh. These orders were challenged through variousapplications before the CAT. The UOI relied on the enquiry reportssubmitted by its Additional Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministryof Urban Development, in respect of each of the units/ Presses and by ordersdated 04-05-2012 and 21-05-2012 cancelled the appointments made already.The latter order states as follows:

“The undersigned is directed to say that consequent onreceipt of complaints regarding large scale irregularities in therecruitment process followed in the Govt. of India Presses during2007-08, the matter was handed over to Chief Vigilance Officer,Ministry of Urban Development for investigation.

Reports of CVO in respect of Govt. of India PressesMayapuri, Minto Road, Nilokheri and Aligarh have been receivedwherein it has been found that large number of irregularities havebeencommittedinconductingselectionofcandidateforrecruitment. However, no appointments were made in Govt. ofIndia Press, Minto Road as the recruitment process was stoppedbefore finalization of the selections. The reports of CVO in respectof these presses have been examined in the Ministry and accepted.It has been decided with the approval of Minister of UrbanDevelopment to cancel/terminate the appointments in respect ofall the candidates including those who have joined the service.”

6.Aggrieved by the above decision and orders of the UOI, thePetitioners approached the CAT. By its impugned order, the CAT rejectedtheir contentions. In these circumstances, the petitioners have approachedthis court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The employees selected and

appointed to the Mayapuri Press in Delhi have approached this court byfiling W.P.(C) 2013/2014. The employees working in the press at Nilokherihave filed W.P.(C) 1989/2014 and 4952/2014. Employees who wereappointed at the Aligarh Press have on the other hand, filed W.P.(C)2001/2014, 3410/2014 and 3745/2014.

7.Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that afterholding that the recruitments in the Nilokheri Press (whose employees herepresented in W.P.(C) 1989/2014 and 4952/2014)did not discloseinfirmities, such as nepotism and more recruitment than the number ofvacancies available, the CAT should not have directed cancellation of thePetitioners' appointments, on the ground that the interview was conductedfor an impossibly short period. It was argued that this ground could apply toGroup employees and not Group employees, who were far fewer innumber and, therefore, had been interviewed for sufficiently long. It wassubmitted that the ground of number of vacancies being far less than whatwas recommended and actually filled was mistakenly invoked, though thematerial on record clearly showed that the number of sanctioned posts aswell as requirements were taken note of in the Central Government's ordersdated 18-5-2007 and 05-07-2005. These clearly established that the numberof vacancies earmarked and available for such Group employees likeAssistant Binder, etc were sufficient. It was argued that the number of postsadvertised were filled up but the issue raised by the CVO in its report wasthat the number of vacancies advertised were not sanctioned. This, thecounsel submitted, was an entirely incorrect premise. It is submitted that theCAT seems to have not even gone into the records to ascertain the facts and

the report of the CVO. Nilokheri Press, according to the newspaperadvertisement, had advertised different posts that were advertised such asOffset Machine Attendant, Offset Machine Assistant, Offset Plate Maker,Wiremen, Assistant Binder, Labourer, Peon, Mali, Chowkidaar, Safaiwala.These were the different posts which were notified, against which thenumber of vacancies for each posts were also indicated. Learned counselalso argues that according to the appointment letter the maximum period ofprobation was two years and the same was neither extendable nor there wasany clause requiring any specific confirmation from any authority and,therefore, in the face of these facts even the finding of the learned Tribunalwith regard to non-completion of the Petitioners' probation is incorrect.

8.Ms. Pragya Routaray, learned counsel for Petitioners in W.P.(C)4952/2014 argued that CAT erred in not considering the CVO's reportpertaining to Nilokheri, and instead appeared to have considered the findingsof the CVO in respect of the recruitment at Aligarh. In this regard, it waspointed out that the nature and category of posts advertised in Aligarhdiffered from what were advertised in Nilokheri; in considering the CVO'sreport pertaining to Aligarh and holding that there were fatal infirmities inthe selection process, CAT erred in law.

9.Mr. Mittal, who also represented the employees appointed to theMayapuri Press, pointed out that the CVO in his report made the followingobservations :

"v Large number of interviews for the post of Peon, Safaiwala,Faras, Chowkidaar and Labourer were held in extremely shorttime in GIP, Mayapuri which is not amenable to fair assessment."

It was urged that from the CVO's observations, as regards other posts areconcerned, showed no irregularity with regard to the holding of interviewsand the selection is absolutely fair and proper. Yet, the CAT upheldscrapping of the entire selection process even in respect of the other postswhich were notified rather than considering the limited aspect vis-à-visPeons, Safaiwalas, Faras, Chowkidar and labourers, etc.

10.Mr. G.D. Gupta, Learned senior counsel, appearing for the Group Demployees of Mayapuri, argued that the finding with respect to shortinterview time was erroneous. Counsel pointed out that the candidates wereinterviewed in fact, in batches and asked to perform practical duties to assessthe suitability by the Selection Panel. This fact was overlooked by the CVO,and consequently, CAT in its impugned order. It was emphasized that thedecision to terminate is in effect, punitive in nature and content, because theemployees were all confirmed after having put in more than twice theprescribed period of probation. In the circumstances, CAT should not haveupheld their termination, but relegated them to regular and full-fledgedinquiry where they could have established their innocence. The departmentwas under duty to charge them for misconduct, if they were involved inany unfair practice at the stage of selection. It was also urged that thedecision to terminate the petitioners was taken after four years of theirhaving joined employment; thus it acted very harshly upon them,considering that they were not highly educated and would also face age barin all subsequent employment opportunities. Consequently, argued learnedsenior counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Furthermore, allSelection Committee Members charged with irregularities were exoneratedand that equities arise in their favour given that period of four years were

completed.The maximum period of probation in terms of the OM ofSeptember, 2011 was completed and the rights crystallized in respect of theposts by virtue of the decision in State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C. Bhargav1987 (4) SCC 482.

11.Similarargumentswereaddressedbycounselinrespectofemployees/ Petitioners who were selected and appointed in the Aligarh Press(W.P.(C) Nos. 2001/2014, 3410/2014 and 3745/2014). Learned counsel alsoargued that the findings and observations of the CVO with regard tovacancies in this press - like that of the other units, could not have beenupheld. Counsel stressed that the vacancies advertised were in accordancewith the senior official's (General Manager's) assessment, after approval andthe employees could not have been faulted with any deficiencies. It was alsoargued that there was no irregularity in the notification of vacancies, becausethe charts were prepared after the 18-05-2007 letter was issued and dulyscrutinized. It was also submitted that having held that there was no force inthe argument with respect to the excess recruitment of employees over thenumber of vacancies, in favour of the petitioners, the CAT should not havedismissed their applications, on the basis of something which was not heldby CVO in his report. It was submitted in this context that the interviewirregularities applied only to Group employee/candidates and not toGroup employees, who had to undergo trade test and also face interview.Being in far fewer numbers, there was adequate time with the SelectionCommittee to appraise their suitability before recommending them. Theseemployees also argued that as their period of probation had ended, theycould not have been terminated without departmental enquiry into

allegations against them. The termination orders, it was urged, were unfairand utterly arbitrary.

Contentions of the respondent

12.It is argued, on behalf of the Government of India Press, that thedecision of the CAT is unexceptionable and does not call for interference.Submittingthattherecruitmentprocessinallthreecentreswasfundamentally flawed, counsel highlighted that the CVO had preparedreports which painstakingly outlined the fatal infirmities.

13.Arguing that the report in respect of Mayapuri Unit revealed thatnepotistic practices prevailed in the recruitments, counsel highlighted that 61out of the 100 candidates selected were related to some senior officer in thedepartment or the other.It was also submitted that the candidature ofapprentices was completely ignored, wherever such applicants were trainedin the concerned trade, and the report (for Mayapuri) revealed that interviewletters were issued 5-7 days before the date of interview.

14.Likewise, it was argued that the advertisement was issued on7.12.2007 and the last date notified for receipt of application was22.12.2007. It was submitted that 44 unapproved vacancies in respect ofvarious cadres were advertised and were subject matter of the recruitmentprocess.Counsel stated that the highlighted infirmities mentioned in theCVO’s report for Mayapuri underline that, taken as whole, theGovernment of India Press was justified in scrapping/cancelling the entirerecruitment process. It was submitted that even though there was no specificfinding on this aspect, the discussion in the impugned order and the

conclusion recorded in paragraph 7.2 shows that the CAT was not inclinedto interfere in favour of the applicants.

15.It was urged – in respect of the recruitments in the Aligarh Unit thatparagraphs 3.1 - 3.7 of the CVO’s report has outlined several infirmities.Even though, the CAT has not made any specific adverse findings, counselstated that it is open to the Union of India to show the material whichformed the basis of the ultimate decision to deny relief to the applicants.Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner’s arguments that the CATrecorded adverse findings only in respect of the short time given forinterview to the candidates is an incorrect premise and relied upon paragraph7.1 and 7.2 of the impugned order. It was urged that likewise in Nilokheri,44 recommendations were made against 17 approved posts and 27unapproved posts and that out of 33 candidates appointed, 18 were in respectof unapproved posts.

16.Learned counsel stated that for all the Units, i.e., Mayapuri, Nilokhediand Aligarh, the governing decisions contained in the Minutes of meeting of5.7.2007 held under the Chairmanship of Additional Director and Head ofDepartment, Directorate of Printing, had clearly mandated that all Presseshad to circulate to other sister GIPs details of their surplus employees whocould be transferred or redeployed to the other sister Presses by 15.7.2007and more importantly, advertised posts that were to be filled up by them ondirect recruitment basis/deputation. This clearly limited the discretion of theUnits which were not expected to fill all the vacancies which had beendetermined and noticed in the Office Order of 18.5.2007. It was stated that,whereas, the number of posts identified for the purpose of the GovernmentPresses at various locations after modernization was much larger the numberof posts identified for the purpose of direct recruitment and transfer was asmaller figure. Each Press had to comply with the later order embodied inthe Minutes of meeting of 5.7.2007 and indicate the vacancies that had to befilled through direct recruitment.Instead of doing so, the SelectionCommittees in the present case went ahead and selected far greater numberof candidates than the available vacancy. This pointed to clear mistake onthe part of the various Units and the Selection Committee who understoodand interpreted the Circulars contrary to their intent.It was argued,therefore, the Central Government was entitled to exercise discretion andcancel the entire recruitment process, instead of carrying out segregatingexercise of trying to salvage part of it. This exercise, it was submitted, is inconformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. O.Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146. Reliance was also placed upon the decisionin Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, for theproposition that the recruitment agency is not bound to make appointmentand operate the entire select list for good and valid reasons.Learnedcounsel for the Government of India Press, lastly, argued that no candidatehas right to contend that he ought to be appointed. At best, he has rightto be considered for appointment.In the present case, even though, theappointments were made – of large number of individuals, the fact remainsthat the fatal infirmities undermined the recruitment process. This is not acase where the petitioners can be said to have acquired an entitlement or liento the post so as to claim that upon completion of their probation period,their services cannot be terminated. It was further urged that the petitionerscannot insist that any violation of principle of natural justice took place.The concerned authorities considered the entire records after the previous

judgment and order of this Court in the writ proceedings and made the ordercancelling the entire recruitment process.There is no arbitrariness orunfairness and that no individual has been discriminated against or givenfavourable treatment.Analysis and Findings

17.It can be seen from the above discussion that immediately after therecruitment process was over, apparently complaints started pouring in -these alleged various irregularities. By the time action could be initiated andtaken, several selected candidates were appointed. The action in cancellingthe selections was challenged. Ultimately, the matter reached this court inW.P.(C) 4745/2011 and connected petitions; this Court directed the CentralGovernment to take an informed decision, after applying its mind to all thefacts and materials before it. The impugned orders of 04-05-2012 and 21-05-2012 were issued pursuant to that judgment of this court.

17.The Court first proposes to deal with the common contentions of thepetitioners. They are two in number. The first is that the CentralGovernment could and should have made an attempt to segregate or separatethe selected successful candidates whose role and involvement was dubiousin the recruitment process from other successful candidates, who wereinnocent of any malpractice, especially when it was possible for it to do so.In this submission, reliance was placed on O. Chakradhar (supra) - in factthe respondents too relied on the same decision.

18.In cases involving use of unfair means in public examinations andrecruitment processes carried out by state agencies, it is necessary that thefairness of the process should be asserted by non-discriminatory approach.No doubt, there are observations in O. Chakradhar (supra) suggestive of

circumspect approach by the state agencies who have to take slightlyindividualist and graded decision. Yet, the mandate of Article 14, to ensure auniform and non-discriminatory standard is compulsive. Once graveinfirmities are detected, the extent and nature becomes relevant to decidewhat remedial measures can be taken. In Prithpal Singh v. State of Haryana,1994 (5) SCC 695, for instance the Supreme Court held that:

" It is in the public interest that members of the police force shouldbe selected objectively and fairly. The irregularities found in theinstant case show that the selection made by the Board was notobjective and fair. It is, therefore, in public interest that selectionsandappointmentsmadeconsequentthereonbequashedforthwith".

In Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC165, the Supreme Courtobserved as follows:

"Public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such officersare meant for use and not abuse. In this case fraud has reached itscrescendo. The acts were motivated by extraneous considerations.From Minister to menial everyone has been dishonest to gainundew advantages. The whole examination and the interview haveturned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those whohave been responsible for this sordid episode. It shock the Court'sconscience to come across such systematic fraud. The HighCourt was not justified taking the path of least resistance stating,in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It shouldhave helped itself. Law is not that powerless.

In O. Chakradhar (supra) itself, the Court held that:

"..the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularitiescommitted in conducting selection will have to be scrutinized ineach case so as to come to conclusion about future course ofaction to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is no

widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make itdifficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfullybenefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases itwill neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual showcause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be tocancel the whole selection. "

It is, thus, evident that no universal rule that wherever irregularities arefound or discerned, the appointing authority or Government department isobliged to first examine each case, to determine if some individuals’selections can be salvaged, or if the entire selection process should becancelled can be seen. That is fact dependent exercise, contextual to thecircumstances of given case.

19.The next question is whether this Court is constrained by the findingsof the CAT in respect of some of the issues on which it has not foundagainst the Petitioners. On this question, all counsel for the petitioners hadargued that since the Central Government had not preferred any proceedingsagainst those findings, it cannot urge that the CAT’s findings were incorrect.Counsel for the Central Government, on the other hand, argued that withoutpreferring any separate writ petition, it is open for it to argue that the adversefindings against it, of the CAT, were not justified.

20.In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector ofCentral Excise, (1998) 3 SCC 540, the Supreme Court expressed its viewson the topic as follows:-

"26. The aforesaid decision was cited before another three JudgeBench in the case of Baru Ram v. Prasanni, where it was notdissented from. But in the light of the decision of the ConstitutionBench of this Court in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi

Ajitkumar Fulsinji, the ratio adopted in the earlier-mentioned twodecisions is no more in vogue. The Constitution Bench held thatthis Court has power to decide all points arising from theimpugned judgment and even in the absence of an expressprovision like Order 41 Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, this Courtcan devise appropriate procedure to be adopted at the hearing.The observations of the Bench which are relevant now are thefollowing :--

"There could be no better way of supplying the deficiency than bydrawing upon the provisions of general law like the Code ofCivil Procedure and adopting such of those provisions as aresuitable. We can not lose sight of the fact that normally party inwhose favour the judgment appealed from has been given will notbe granted special leave to appeal from it. Consideration ofjustice, therefore, require that this Court should in appropriatecases permit party placed in such position to support thejudgment in his favour even upon grounds which were negativedin that judgment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in VashishtNarain Sharma, case too narrow view was taken regarding thepowers of this Court......"

We, therefore, concede that the respondents can not be precludedin this appeal from canvassing for reversal of finding containedin the impugned judgment despite its end result being in theirfavour."

The Supreme Court had referred to previous judgment in RamanbhaiAshabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji AIR 1965 SC 669, by aConstitution Bench whichruled that party can always support thejudgment in his favour even on grounds that were negatived in theimpugned judgment, without preferring an appeal. This point was againdriven home by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v.Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 659. In Paragraph16 (1) the Court articulated the question and in Paragraph 17 answered it.The discussion is as follows:

"16. (1) Whether the respondents can justify the final order of theHigh Court on other grounds upon principles referable to Order41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code without filing an appealin time ?*** *** *** *** ***

…In view of the recent judgment of this Court in Ravindra KumarSharma v. State of Assam (1999) 7 SCC 435 : (AIR 1999 SC3571), it is, in our opinion, open to the respondents to attack theadverse findings arrived at or observations made by the HighCourt, even if the respondents had not filed separate appealagainst that part of the judgment. Hence, the respondents cancontend that the finding or observations that their appointmentswere tainted was not correct. We have also condoned the delay infiling the Special Leave Petition (CC 3960/99) and therefore, forboth reasons, it will be open to them to attack the said finding inthe appeals of the appellants or as appellants in their own CivilAppeal arising out of SLP (CC 3960/99)."

In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Central Government cansupport the conclusions in the impugned order, even while highlightingthe errors in respect of some of the issues, in the present proceeding.

21.The court would proceed to first consider the question of excessrecruitments. In this regard, the relevant first document, is the letter writtenon 18-05-2007. That is extracted below:

“No.20(5)2002-A.IIIGovernment of IndiaMinistry of Urban DevelopmentDirectorate of Printing312 ‘B’ Wing, Nirman Bhawan

New Delhi-110011

Dated 18-5-2007

OFFICE ORDER

Sub: Sanctioned strength of various Government of India Presses(under modernization scheme) – Notification regarding

In pursuance of the Govt. of India decision dated 16.8.2002 and1.2.2006 for modernization of Govt. of India Presses and inconsultation with the Ministry of Finance, the undersigned isdirected to convey the approval of the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment for the creation/revival/transfer/filling up of theposts in various Government of India Presses as follows:-

(i)Creation of 693 posts (115 posts to be filled up by directrecruitment and 578 posts to be filled by redeployment)

(ii)Revival and filling up of 464 vacant posts; and(iii)Retention of 134 existing posts in Govt. of India Press,Shimla

(a)Filling up of the 26 vacancies through Direct Recruitment.

(b)Redeployment of 22 employees of Shimla Press (Annexure-‘E’)

(iv)Retention of 181 existing posts at Govt. of India FormsStore, Kolkata and 19 posts at Office of Assistant Director(Outside Printing) Kolkata, subject to no further recruitments orcreation of posts in both of these offices.

(v)Creationandabolitionofpostswillbedonesimultaneously.

(vi)All actions are to be completed by December 2007.

(vii)Regarding the surplus posts in the GIP, Shimla and GIFS,Kolkata these post shall be treated as surplus w.e.f. date of issueof this order. However, these surplus posts will be abolished afterindividual posts are identified and incumbent exercises his optionfor Special VRS or get absorbed/redeployment elsewhere, ifpossible. After the expiry of 6 months from the date of this order,the surplus posts shall be treated as vacant and abolished failingwhich action will be taken after Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2.The details of posts to be created and filled up by directrecruitment and through redeployment mentioned at (i) above areas perAnnexure-AandAnnexure-B.

3.The details of the 464 vacant posts to be revived and filledup in various categories mentioned at (ii) above are as perAnnexure-C.

4.Out of 1172 posts in Govt. of India modernized Pressescoming under abolition, 876 posts have already been abolishedand 296 posts will be abolished during the course of filling up ofthe posts through redeployment.

5.Consequently, the overall sanctioned strength of variouscategories of posts in the 12 modernized Presses, - including Govt.of India Press, (Production-cum-Training Centre), Shimla, - willhenceforth be 6469. The details of revised sanctioned strength ofvarious categories of posts in each Press are as perAnnexure-D.

6.The Govt. of India Text Books Presses at Chandigarh,Bhubaneswar and Mysore are to be privatized and 470 availableposts (at present actually available 357 posts) in these Presses areto be retainedtill the retirement of the staff.

7.This issues with the approval of the Ministry of Finance,Department of Expenditure vide their I.D. No.911/E.CoordI/2003dated14.5.2003andI.D.

No.158/Dir.(Pay)/E.Coord.I/2007 dated 14.2.2007.

(R.C. Gupta)

Deputy Secretary (P-II)”

22.It is evident that this order was general one; it related toidentification of vacant posts, the total sanctioned posts in various cadresand staff requirement in the light of modernization of Govt. Presses atvarious locations. The next document is the Minutes of Meeting held on5-07-2007 under the chairmanship of Shri S.K. Vywahare, Additional

Director(Admn) and HOD Directorate of Printing to discuss variousissues related to modernization of the presses as well as filling up variousposts in different categories as per the sanctioned strength aftermodernization in accordance with the decision of the Government. Thiswas attended by 13 other senior level officers from the Directorate ofPrinting. The relevant part of the minutes reads as follows:

“5. Thereafter all the presses were required to inform the actiontaken by them so far and also to seek clarifications on any relatedissues. During discussion in the meeting, the following decisionswere taken:

a) The vacant posts in each category will be filled up by themethod indicated in Annexure-A, & of the Office OrderNo.20(5)/2002-A III dated 18.05.2007. The remaining vacantpostsoutofthesanctionedstrengthconsequentuponmodernization of the Presses will be filled up as per RecruitmentRules relating to the concerned post. However, total number ofposts to be filled up should not exceed the number of total strengthof each category of post as mentioned in Annexure-D of the saidOffice Order.

b) In order to give the benefit of absorption by way ofredeployment, the Presses will send their proposals for one timeage relaxation to the Directorate of Printing. After compiling theinformationtheconcernedAdministrativeSectionsintheDirectorate will submit the matter to the competent authority forapproval of one time age relaxation so that maximum number ofsurplus employees can be redeployed/absorbed.

c) The date of issue of notification indicating the sanctionedstrength of Government of India Presses under modernizationscheme, i.e. 18.05.2007 will be the crucial date for determiningthe age limit for redeployment/absorption of surplus staf .However, this will be sent to the Ministry of Urban Developmentfor confirmation and in case of any change the same will beinformed. The Government of India Presses may work out theircalculation on the basis of 18.5.2007. The Presses which haveprepared the information asked for by the Directorate of Printing

vide their letter No.20(5)2002-A III dated 26.06.2007 taking intoaccount any other date than that of 18.05.2007 will revise theirinformation and send the same to this Directorate of by10.07.2007 positively.

d) Priority for absorption/redeployment within the same Press willbe given to the employees according to their seniority subject toclearing the trade tests, wherever applicable.

e) The interest of the surplus employees has been taken care of byway transfer/redeployment/absorption and also special voluntaryretirement scheme. However, creation of super-numerary posts asdemanded by some Associations will not be possible as this will beagainstthespiritoftheGovernmentdecisionregardingmodernization of Government of India Presses.

f) The surplus employees are allowed to give their options fortransfer/redeployment to other Government of India Presseswherever possible. They will also be eligible for Special VoluntaryRetirement Scheme for surplus Government employees as perDOPT’s O.M. No.25013/6/2001-Estt.(A), dated 28.02.2002 interms of notification No. (-17034/2(B&F)/CM/Status Reportpublished in the Gazette of India on 24.07.2006.

g) It has been noticed that the Recruitment Rules for some of thenewly created posts under modernization scheme of the Presses donot exist. The concerned Presses will consult the model RRs forthese posts as may be issued by DOPT or may be available inother Departments/Organizations. On the basis of these modelRRs, the concerned Presses will prepare draft RRs for such postsand send the same to the Directorate for further examination andfinalization. They will also take necessary action to fill up suchposts on ad hoc on the basis of draft RRs as prepared by them andapproved by the Directorate of Printing.

h)Thedatarelatingtosurplusstaffandtheirabsorption/redeployment and the options obtained from them forredeployment, etc. is being compiled in the Directorate of Printingfor monitoring the absorption/redeployment process. However, ithas been decided that to maintain transparency and uniformity inapproach, guidelines will be issued by the Directorate of Printinglaying down the criteria for redeployment, for example length of

service, clearing tests/training wherever required and suitabilityfor the post, etc. These guidelines will be circulated to all thePresses and also to the recognized Associations/Unions. Theseniority of such redeployed surplus employees will be governedby the clarification given by the Directorate of Printing earlier.i) The employees in the Government of India Test Book Presseslocated at Chandigarh, Bhubaneswar, Mysore would be givenopportunity to give their option for absorption/redeployment inother Presses and also to seek Special VRS. This has already beennotified in the Gazette of India on July 24, 2006.

j) As consequence of modernization in all the Government ofIndia Presses latest machinery will be procured and installedwhich would require minimum manpower for the operation ofsuch machines. Further the total sanctioned strength of all thePresses has been increased with reference to the existing staff inposition. It is also relevant that the spirit of modernization is toacquire latest technologies in Printing which would need veryless staff strength. The management of the presses will educatetheir employees and Associations about this fact.

k) All the Presses will circulate to other sister GIPs with copy tothe Directorate of Printing, the details of their surplus employeeswho can be transferred/redeployed in other sister Presses by15.07.2007, if not circulated earlier. They will also advertise theposts which are to be filled up by them on direct recruitmentbasis/deputation basis upto 20.07.2007 positively. All the GIPswill also send fortnightly reports based on status upto 15 shouldbe sent as on 15.7.2007 and should reach Directorate of Printingon or before 20.7.2007 indicating the action taken regardingfilling up of the posts in each category as well as regardingSpecial VRS applications received and their status.

l) The break up of the post required to be retained in Governmentof India Forms Store Kolkata will shortly be intimated by theDirectorate of Printing. In this regard action is being taken by DD(B&F).

m) In regard to revival and filling up of 464 vacant posts shown inAnnexure-C, it is noticed that out of 464 posts, 14 posts of SpecialGrade Machine Man (Of set) (Rs.5000-8000) have been shownagainst Government of India Press, Nashik but these posts have

not been mentioned in Annexure-D containing the total sanctionedstrength of each category of post of Government of India Presses.It has, therefore, been decided that these posts will have to be keptin abeyance till decision is taken in consultation with theMinistry of Finance.

n) The training will be imparted to the employees whereverrequired by taking the help of training facilities available inShimla, Faridabad & respective presses.

o) The action for filling up of the vacant post is to be completed bythe stipulated dated, i.e. 31.12.2007 positively.

p) In case action for filling up of any category of posts is notpossible by 31.12.2007, its intimation alongwith the detailedreasons must be sent to DOP by 31.8.2007 positively so thatdecision of the Government can be taken thereon.

q) It was also decided that GIPs will point in writing thediscrepancies, if any, in the Recruitment Rules and the DOP willexamine the same and communicate the decision thereon.

r) It was pointed out by some presses that in place of Medical Oficer, Ministry of Health has posted Sr. Medical Officers who arein the higher scale of pay than that mentioned in the sanctionedstrength. It was informed that the issue will be taken up withMinistry of Health and Family Welfare as well as Ministry ofFinance, for clarification.

s) It was informed that DOP will nominate member required forDPC after the Government of India Presses fix up date for theDPC meeting. The request in this regard must be received in theDOP at least 10 working days in advance.The meeting ended with thanks to the Chair.”

The crucial part of this document is that while it took stock of the previousletter, it sought to operationalize the manner of filling of posts identifiedearlier. Importantly, Clause 5 (k) mandated that the concerned units (Govt.Presses) “will also advertise the posts which are to be filled up by them ondirect recruitment basis/deputation basis..” This was the aspect which

impressed the CVO when he undertook the task of reviewing the recruitmentprocess in each Press and preparing the reports.

23.The report in respect of Mayapuri Press (W.P.(C) 2013/2014)highlighted the following deficiencies:

“Part-IV

7.Summary of main findings: In the entire recruitmentprocess, it was found that

(i)Posts advertised by GIP, Mayapuri in December, 2007was in excess of approved number of posts essentially required tobe filled as per Directorate of Printing Office Order No.O.M.20(5)/2002-A.III dt.18.05.2007.

(Para 3.4)

(ii)Appointments of 110 candidates (Annexure D) have beenmade by direct recruitment (whereas no post by direct recruitmentwas to be filled up at GIP Mayapuri in terms of para 2 read withAnnexure of the Directorate of Printing Office Order No.O.M.20(5)/2002-A.III dt.18.05.2007 at Appendix 1).

(Para 3.4)

(iii)Specific approval of competent authority for filling up ofthe posts by direct recruitment in relaxation of ban orders appearsto have not been taken by the Press authorities from the Ministryof Urban Development through the Directorate of Printing priorto advertisement and filling up the posts.

(Para 3.4)

(iv)Appointment of Shri Hitesh Sagar to the post of ArtistRetoucher has been made by the then Manager, GIP, MayapurivideO.M.dated15.02.2008withouttheapprovaloftheCompetent Authority i.e., Director, Directorate of Printing whichis to be treated as irregular.

(para 3.4)

(v)A large number of interviews for the posts of Peon,Safaiwala, Farash, Chowkidar and Labourers held in very short

time at the GIP, Mayapuri.

(Para 5.2)

(vi)Majority of appointments made were relatives of existingemployees of the Press which could not be on merit alone andnepotism and favoritism cannot be ruled out.(Para 5.3)

(vii)Elder son of Shri Devendra Singh, Asstt. Manager (T),GIP, Minto Road, has been appointment for the post of AssistantMechanic in GIP, Mayapuri.

(Para 5.3)

(viii)Direct Recruitments in GOI Press Mayapuri have beenmade without any verification of character and antecedents of thecandidates.

(ix)Appointments to the post of Labourer were made in excessof the posts advertised.

(Para 5.9)

(x)Appointments to the post of Labourer made was also inexcess of the number of candidates recommended by theRecruitment Committee.”

Para 3 of the Mayapuri report took note of the 18-05-2007 order and had inthe course of the analysis revealed through two tabular statements, therequirement of posts and those which had to be earmarked for directrecruitment. This para, to the extent it is relevant, is extracted below:

“3.3Thereafter, in regard to filling up of vacancies as per pre-revised sanctioned strength, Directorate of Printing in its O.M.No.16/8/2007-AI dated 2/9.8.2007 (Appendix-3) requested allManagers of GIP Presses that all cases requiring relaxation ofany provisions of the recruitment rules which have becomenecessary for filling up the posts through either by directrecruitmentorpromotion/re-deployment/transfer,shouldbe

identified and put up to Secretary, Ministry of Urban Developmentin consolidated manner by fourth week of August, 2007.

3.4The Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri,issued an advertisement (Annexure A1-3) in December, 2007inviting applications for filling up various posts.Fifteen daystime-limit was fixed for receiving application from the date ofadvertisement. IN total 94 posts in 21 categories (including threeposts in 2 categories of posts to be filled up by deputation) wereadvertised. Details of post-wise number of vacancies, number ofapplications received, number of candidates interviewed, numberofcandidatesrecommendedforappointment(bydirectrecruitment) and number of candidates actually appointed aregiven at Annexure B. It may be seen that in 15 categories of posts,a total number of 110 candidates (Annexure B) were finallyappointed against total of 91 vacancies advertised for filling upby direct recruitment.Apart from above, in one category (atSerial No.16 for the post of Khalasi Electrical) even though theinterviews were held, no candidate was recommended forappointment (Annexure M16). In some other categories, at SerialNo.17 (Wireman), 18 (General Storekeeper – by deputation), 19(Asstt. Inspector Control – deputation), 20 (Jr. Artist 1) and 21(OffsetMachineMan),neitheranyapplication(bydirectrecruitment was received nor any interview was held and noappointment was made (Annexure P).**************

********************

3.5Following conclusions can be easily drawn from theabove: -

(1)The Directorate of Printing had authorized/approved filling uponly 33 posts and that too by methods other than DirectRecruitment.Out of this, 14 posts were neither advertised norfilled up. Against the remaining 19 posts, the Press advertised 94posts (91 to be filled up on Direct Recruitment and 3 byDeputation).only 33 posts and that too by methods other than DirectRecruitment.Out of this, 14 posts were neither advertised norfilled up. Against the remaining 19 posts, the Press advertised 94posts (91 to be filled up on Direct Recruitment and 3 byDeputation).

(2)Againstthe94advertisedvacancies,thePressfinallyrecommended/appointed 110 posts.recommended/appointed 110 posts.

(3)Approval of competent authority for filling up of these 110 poststhrough direct recruitment in relaxation of ban orders on directrecruitment has not been made available by the Press/Directorateof Printing.through direct recruitment in relaxation of ban orders on directrecruitment has not been made available by the Press/Directorateof Printing.

Competent Authority for the appointment of post of ArtistRetoucher is Director, Directorate of Printing (Annexure G),whereas the appointment of Shri Hitesh Sagar to this post hasbeen made by the then Manager, GIP, Mayapuri vide OM dated15.02.2008 (Annexure-W) without the approval of the CompetentAuthority. The appointment of Shri Hitesh Sagar for the post ofArtist Retoucher is therefore irregular.”

The total number of posts advertised was 91 as against the approval to fill 33posts otherwise than by direct recruitment.As many as 110 selections weremade. There was no approval to fill 110 posts. In the light of this factualdetermination, it could not have been said that the Central Government fellinto error in cancelling the entire process of recruitment, for Mayapuri.Here, the court notices that the malaise was not only in regard to the amountof time given to the Selection Committee for interviewing candidates; theerror or mistake was more fundamental. There were no posts that could havebeen filled by direct recruitment. Thus, the entire basis of recruitment tovarious trade based posts as well as Group posts had been undercut. TheCAT, in this court’s opinion fell into grave error in concluding that

“…these were all administrative lapses and the applicants cannotbe penalized for the wrong doings of the respondents. If there wereany discrepancies in the number of posts advertised and filled, itwas for the respondents to correct those by taking post factosanction of the competent authority. We, therefore, agree with the

applicants that this alone cannot be ground for scrapping of theselection.”

The CAT’s reasoning is rather blithe in its disregard to public constraints infunctioning of Government departments; it is based on casual assumptionthat post facto approval can be obtained – indeed should be sought and givenas matter of course. Such sanguineness mistakenly premises publicemployment as largesse.

24.A similar disregard is discernible in respect of the Government Pressat Nilokheri (W.P.(C) 1989/2014 & 4952/2014). The CVO’s report heresummarized his conclusions as follows:

“7.Summary of the main findings. In the entire recruitmentprocess, it has been found that:

(A)GIP, Nilokheri during the year 2007 & 2008 advertised125 posts which were in excess of 90 approved number of postsessentially required to be filled as per Directorate of PrintingOffice Order No.20(5)/2002-A.III dated 8.05.2007. Out of 125posts advertised, 65 were approved posts and remaining 60 werenot approved. 25 approved posts were not advertised.(Para 3.5.1& 3.5.2)

(B)Against the 125 posts advertised, the Recruitment Boardsrecommended 44 candidates for various post. The press madeappointment for only 33 posts. Ten persons were not allowed tojoin at Nilokheri Press subsequent to suspension of RecruitmentProcess on 3-4-2008 as per directives of Directorate of Printing.

Appointment of one candidate for the post of Artist Retoucher wasnot approved by DOP and hence no offer of appointment wasissued against this post.

(Para 3.5.3)

(C)Out of 44 candidates recommended for appointment 17were against approved posts and 27 against unapproved posts.(Para 3.5.4)

(D)Out of 33 candidates appointed, 15 were against approvedposts and 18 against unapproved posts. (Para 3.5.5)

(E)There is no evidence to support any allegation of bribe ormanipulation against any official of the GIP, Nilokheri.(Para5.1.5)

(F)No records are available to substantiate the allegationthat Shri Mehra has purchased car and property at MayurVihar. However, Shri Mehra is stated to have purchased flat atDwarka as informed by himself to his office, the sources of fundsfor which is being examined by Directorate of Printing. In theevent of any prima facie case of disproportionate assets, thematter may be referred to CBI by Director of Printing. (Para5.1.5(b))

(G)The orders dated 25.1.2008 for giving additional charge ofManager, GIP to Shri C.S. Mehra, Deputy Director, Directorateof Printing vice Shri S.R. Bodra were issued by the Directorate ofPrinting without any authority in the midst of interview processalready on. This appears to have been done to influence therecruitment process. Director/Addl. Director (Printing) should beheld responsible for this. (Para 5.1.5 (c)

(H)After orders dated February 01, 2007 giving additionalcharge of Manager, GIP, Nilokheri to Shri Bodra were issued,although Shri Bodra looked after the work of Manager, GIP atNilokheri, he had not formally taken over the charge of Manager,GIP at Nilokheri in the prescribed proforma. Even Shri Mehrahad taken charge not from his predecessor (Shri Bodra) but fromhis Deputy Manager of the Press (Shri R.B. Suhag). Directorate ofPrinting may look into the practice of handing over/taking overcharge formally as an administrative irregularity and takeappropriate measures. (Para 5.1.5(c)

XXXXXX

(M)Appointments in April, 2008 in GOI Press Nilokheri havebeen made without any prior verification of character andantecedents of the selected candidates. GOI Press Nilokheri(Haryana) got the character and antecedents of the candidatesverified in May/June, 2008, i.e. after lapse of months after theirappointment in March/April 2008. GIP Nilokheri did not takesimultaneous action in March, 2008 for verification of characterand antecedents during this period. There has been undue hurryand eagerness on the part of the Manager, GIP, Nilokheri tocomplete the entire process of recruitment in haste withoutfollowing the prescribed norms and procedure relating toverification of character and antecedents. (Para 5.5.5)”

As may be seen, out of 44 candidates recommended for appointment 17were against approved posts and 27 against unapproved posts. Of the 33candidates appointed, 15 were against approved posts and 18 againstunapproved posts. Like in the case of Mayapuri Press, the number ofcandidates who could have been actually appointed regularly was far lessthan the number appointed. The second irregularity was that the GeneralManager took over under questionable circumstances. Lastly, appointmentswere made without any prior verification of character and antecedents of theselected candidates, in GOI Press Nilokheri; the character and antecedents ofthe candidates were verified in May/June, 2008, i.e. after lapse of monthafter the appointments in March/April 2008. These irregularities weresufficient for the Central Government to decide to scrap the entire selectionin this Press.

25.The CVO’s report for Aligarh (W.P.(C) 2001/2014, 3410/2014 &3745/2014) in its relevant parts, reads as follows:

“3.7Following conclusions can be drawn from the above:-

(a)The Ministry of Urban Development (Directorate ofPrinting)videitsofficeorderNo.20(5)/2002-A.IIIdated18.05.2007 (Annexure-L4) had authorized/approved only 67posts to be filled as Direct Recruitment vacancies/Essentialvacancies. Out of this 14 posts were not advertised. Againstremaining 53 (67-14) posts, the Press advertised/notified 179posts. The overall excess of posts advertised is 136 (179-53).

** The fourteen include Electrician-1, Steno-1, LDC-3 andCopyholder-5, Tech Officer-5, Wireman-2.

(b)Approval of competent authority for advertisement of 136excess vacancies as compared to 67 approved, in relaxation banorders on direct recruitment has not been made available by theGIP Press, Aligarh/Directorate of Printing during the course ofinvestigation.

(c)IntotaltheRecruitmentBoardrecommended133candidates for various post as indicated at Annexure Q-3. Out ofthat appointments were made in respect of only 58 (Statement-Aabove).

(d)There were 67 approved posts in 12 categories to be filledup by direct recruitment. Out of these, recruitments were not madeagainst 50 posts belonging to the categories of DarkroomAssistant, Electrician, Labourer, Assistant Retoucher, AssistantArtist Retoucher, Cameramen, Stenographer, LD, Copyholder,Technical Officer, and Wireman. 49 recruitments were madeagainst against the remaining 17 approved posts in AssistantBinder category. In addition 9 recruitments were made in thecategories of Carpenter, Assistant Plate Maker, M/C AttendantOfficer and M/C Assistant Offset even though no posts existed inthese categories. As result the total number of recruitmentagainst unapproved posts was 41 (Assistant Binder-32, Carpenter-1, Assistant Plate Maker: 2, M/C Attendant Offset: 5, and M/CAssistant Offset: 1).

(e)Out of 133 candidates recommended for selection, seventythree persons (Annexure Q-3) were not allowed to join GIP Pressat Aligarh (U.P. subsequent to suspension of Recruitment Process

on 03.04.2008 as per directive of Directorate of Printing. Twopersons refused to accept offer/appointment at GIP, Press,Aligarh. Against the remaining advertised vacancies 46 (179-133),the Press did not appoint any person as no selection was made.The entire recruitment process was stayed by the Directorate ofPrinting on 3[rd]April 2008 on direction of the M/o of U.D., vide itsletter dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure-A).

(f)Out of 133 candidates recommended for appointment(27***) recommendations were against approved posts and 106against unapproved posts.

***Assistant Artist Retoucher-1, Labourer-9 & Assistant Binder-17 (as indicated in Annexure-A & of letter dated 18.05.2007 –Annexure L-4)

***********************************

“5.1Specific instances of alleged irregularities:

MANIPULATION IN THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATESBYTHERECRUITMENTBOARDINRESPECTOFVARIOUS GROUP POSTS.

5.1.1Reference number of Complaints in which allegation ismade.

Annexure C-3(ii), C-4, C-6 and C-9.

5.1.2Specific instances of alleged irregularities-

i)On 5[th]March, 2008, to rectify some technical error in thelist finalized on 27.02.2008 on the basis of interview conductedbetween 22.02.2008 to 26.02.2008, another list was prepared forSafaiwala, Peon, Chowkidar, Labourer etc. Lot of changes in thelist were made and inspite of great resistance by all the outsidemembers the list was again changed and signed y all memberswhile previous list was torn away by the Manager.

ii)The list of selected candidates finalized on 26.02.2008 bythe Selection Committee on the basis of the interview conducted

between 20-25 February, 2008 was to be displayed on the noticeboard but it was not done. In the selection Committee meetingagain convened on 05.03.2008, Manager stated that some namesare to be changed in the list finalized on 26.02.2008 as perdirection of the senior officers of Directorate of Printing. Thus,Manager cut some narries in the list and inserted another namesin his own handwriting C-6 (iii)

(iii)In the Selection Committee meeting again convened on05.03.2008, Manager on the pretext of rectifying some technicalerror in the list finalized on 26.02.2008, Manager cut some namesin the list and inserted another names in their place in his ownhandwriting. C-9(ii)

(iv)When complainant SC Member of the Selection Committeeopposed the above action, he was removed fromthe SelectionCommittee in violation of rules. One minority member was alsoremoved from the Selection Committee. C-4

(v)When the above action of the Manager was opposed by theSelection Committee member viz., Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Dr.Naushad Äli Khan, they were removed from the SelectionCommittee by the Manager arbitrarily and in violation of rules. C-6

(vi)The candidates selected in final list issued on 30.03.2008have been shown selected by the Selection Committee includingtwo new members viz., Sh. Lal Singh and Dr. Rahim Ahmed Khanwhereas the fact is that these two members of the SelectionCommittee had not interviewed the candidates during 22.02.2008to 26.02.2008.

(vii)It has been observed from the final selection list displayedon the Notice Board on 31.03.2008 that lot of manipulation fromthe candidates from first phase of Group-D interview have beennoticed. The minutes did not bear the signature of two members ofthe Old Selection Board. C-4

(viii)No codal procedure was followed for selection. No markswere given to any candidates on which the new Board could havetaken right decision for selection. C-4

(ix)The final list of the selected candidates issued on30.03.2008 was not signed by Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Dr.Naushad Ali Khan who were removed from the SelectionCommittee which conducted interview during 22-26.02.2008which is not proper. C-6

(x)None of the applicant was selected on the basis of theinterview conducted during 2[nd]spell for the post of Labourer. C-3(ii)

(xi)Except one applicant who is the son of Sh. Lal Singh,member of the Selection Committee, no other applicant wasselected in the final selectionlist on the basis of the interviewconducted on 28.03.2008 to 30.03.2008. C-9

5.1.3 (i) to (xi) Facts and their analysis

As per office Circular dated 30.03.2008 and Minutes attachedthereto (Annexure-D), the interviews for the posts of Labourerwere held on 22[nd], 23[rd]and 24[th]February, 2008 and 28[th]and 30[th]March 2008. It is on record that on 5[th]March, 2008, anothermeeting was convened with view to rectifying the technicalerror, the details of which were not provided (Annexure-G). Theformal proceedings of the Meetings of Recruitment Board held onFebruary 22-24[th]2008 have not been made available duringinvestigation. As such the technical errors that were stated to berectified in the meeting of 05.03.2008 are not on record.

ThefinallistoftheselectedcandidatesinrespectofLABOURER post was declared on 30-03-2008 (Annexure-D). Atotal of 39 candidates were selected and 6 candidates as detailedin (Annexure-D, Page 3) were placed in the waiting list. This listof final selection of the candidates was signed by the followingfour officers, namely:-(i)ShriB.Ghosh,Manager,Chairman(ii)ShriA.K.Chowdhry Member Secretary (iii) Shri G.K. Sharma, Member (iv)Dr. Abduraheem. K. Member (Minority). Sh. Lal Singh, Member(SC). As per the minutes of the meeting he has been shown asabsent. As per the statement dated 22.10.2009 of Dr. Naushad Alirecordedduringinquiry(Annexure-L)heattendedthe

proceedings of the Recruitment Board held on 22[nd]to 24[th]February, 2008 as Minority Community Member.

As per the above list the interviews for the post of LABOURERwere held in two spells, i.e. on February 22, 23 and 24, 2008 and28[th]and 30[th]March, 2008.

To ascertain veracity of the allegations the main complainantShri Vinod Kumar working as Assistant Binder (Token No.570), inthe press was contacted. He informally handed over the unsignedoriginal piece of paper (Annexure-C) in support of his allegationbearing handwritten remarks and disclosing the names of variousofficials of the Press and the Directorate of Printing whoreportedly recommended the names for selection in the labourercategory of post. The handwriting on this piece of paper is allegedto be of the then Manager of the Press (Shri B. Ghosh, sinceretired). No record of the proceedings with respect to thisdocument has been kept by the Press.

In this context the statement dated 24/20/2009 of Shri VishnuSwaroop, Member SC of the Recruitment Board recorded –during enquiry is relevant which clearly indicated that thehandwriting on this paper is of Shri B. Ghosh (Annexure-I).With view to further verifying this aspect, hand written specimenhave been obtained from the personal file of Shri Ghosh which aremarked as Annexure-F. It has been observed that prima facie thehandwriting on the above documents, i.e. Annexure and Ftallies with each other.

The above facts reveal that the allegation of manipulation inpreparation of the final list of the selected candidates isestablished.

The following observations also strongly support the aboveconclusion:-

(a)The signatures of Dr. Swaroop, Member SC were notobtained in the final list prepared on 30-03-2008 (Annexure-D).He attended the meeting of the Recruitment Board as is evidentfrom Annexure-C (unsigned) and other documents marked asAnnexure-G.ItisremarkablethattheMembersofthe

Recruitment Board finalized the list of selected candidates withoutanyevaluationorassessmentsheets.Thisacquiresmoresignificance as the final list was prepared after the interviewsconducted in the second spell in March 2008 whereas thecandidates selected were interviewed in the first spell in February2008. The members of the Recruitment Board who have put theirsignatures on the final list of selected candidates should be heldresponsible.

(b)None of the candidates appeared in the second spell ofinterviews during 28[th]to 30[th]March 2008 was selected by theRecruitment Board.

(c)The names written in hand by way of cutting/overwritingas result of manipulation more or less find place in the final list.The names indicated in this list which have been circled andalleged to have recommended the names of the candidates includethat of (i) A.K. Chowdary, - A.M.(A), Minto Road and member ofthe Recruitment Board, (ii) Sinha (A.K. Sinha, G.M.), (iii) RC (RCGupta, D.S.), (iv) L R (L R Gupta, DD) – All officials of theDirectorate in Delhi during the recruitment process. However,authenticity of this document is not confirmed as it contains nosignatures.

(d)As per the letter dated 25.3.2010 no records of theattendance during the first spell of interviews/tests held on 22, 23and 24 Feb, 2007 has been maintained in the press.

***********************************

Documents relied upon: - Annexure-C, &

5.1.4Findings:-

The candidates appeared for interviews in respect of ‘Labourers’category in two spells, first on 22, 23 and 24 February and secondon 28[th]and 30[th]March, 2008. Neither marking sheet nor signedrecommendations by Members of the DPC which conducted theinterviews from 22[nd]to 24[th]February 2008 were available.Subsequently, composition of the Committee was changed byreplacing two Members which later conducted the interviews on

28[th]and 30[th]March, 2008. However, the final list of the selectedcandidates was prepared after the conclusion of the interviews inthesecondspellwithoutamarkingsheetorsignedrecommendationsbytheCommitteewhichconductedtheinterviews in the first spell. It is not clearon what basis theMembers of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatureson the final list of selected candidates have done so. Theallegation of manipulation in the selection of candidates is,therefore, established on the basis of documentary evidenceavailable on record. The Members of the Recruitment Board whohave put their signatures on the final list of selected candidatesshould be held responsible.”

(ii)So far as the petitioner Manjeet Sharma is concerned, thereport of CVO in para 5.7.3(i) is as follows:

“As per the advertisement in the Employment News dated the 10-16 November, 2007, the last date for submission of application forthe post of Assistant Binder was 03.12.2008. As per the record ofthe Press one Shri Manjeet Sharma (Roll No.270) applied for thepost on 21.11.2007 and the same was registered in the Press on23.11.2007 as diary No.1884. On checking of the relevant papersof this candidate it is seen that the Provisional NationalApprenticeship certificate issued by the Govt. of India Press, RingRoad, New Delhi is dated 13.12.2007, i.e. issued after the last dateof receipt of application form. In other words, the application wasnot complete in all respects but was accepted and treated aseligible one. There is also an indication on the front page of theapplicationthatheis“NOTQUALIFIED”whichwassubsequently marked as OK on 09.01.2008 and duly signed by theofficials of the press on the front portion of the application of theform.”

26.The above extracts clearly reveal that of the 133 candidatesrecommended for appointment, 27 recommendations were against approvedposts (i.e Assistant Artist Retoucher-1, Labourer-9 and Assistant Binder-17)and 106 were against unapproved posts. Other infirmities, or deficiencieswhich had the tendency to fatally undermine the recruitment process were

that the signatures of member of the selection board were not found on therecommendations; manipulations such as cutting, overwriting, etc werefound in the select list, scoring out certain names and substituting them withothers. Selections were conducted piecemeal; in such circumstances, thesignatures of the members of the old selection board were not found on theselect lists; marks were not assigned, etc.

27.The argument made by some of the selected candidates was that theinfirmity in the selection process was confined to certain categories, such asGroup D. forceful plea was made that since there was specific infirmityin respect of the time given for interviewing the candidates (which accordingto the CVO’s report, pointed at sheer improbability if not downrightimpossibility, given the number of candidates interviewed during limitedtime) was in respect of one Government Press and in relation to Group Dposts, the absence of any mention in the report, as regards other categories,meant that the CAT erred in adopting uniform approach and likewise, therespondents should have taken care to separate such other candidates. Thiscourt is of opinion that the defects in the selection process were sofundamental in nature that only one specific form- i.e interview time inrespect of Group candidates, in Mayapuri (and not other centers or inrespect of other posts) would not have made difference. Apart from that,the materials on record clearly showed more serious flaws: the total numberof posts advertised was 91 as against the approval to fill 33 posts, otherwisethan by direct recruitment. As many as 110 selections were made. There wasno approval to fill 110 posts. Nor is the argument in respect of Group Dcandidates (who were interviewed and declared successful) that they wereinterviewed in batches and made to perform practical duties to assess thesuitability, by the Selection Panel, of any assistance. Likewise, as noticed inrelation to the Aligarh and Nilokheri Presses (in view of the discussionpreviously in this judgment), the malaises were too fundamental to bedisregarded.

28.The argument that since the petitioners were appointed and hadfunctioned uninterruptedly for over five years or so had completed themaximum period stipulated for probation, they were entitled to be retainedin service, unless formal disciplinary charges served and regular inquiriesheld, is, in this court’s opinion, insubstantial. Such rule again is notinflexible; it may possibly apply where there is no fault in the performanceof the candidate, selected and appointed as result of an otherwise validprocess of recruitment. It cannot be invoked in case, like the present one,where the selection on the basis of which the names of the candidates wereselected is tainted by irregularities which strike at the root of the processitself. It is also impossible for the Government to separate the taintedcandidates from un-tainted ones in the present case.The expiry of thestatutory period of probation cannot act as rule validating an otherwiseindefensible selection process which should result in complete cancellation.On this score, the CAT held as follows:

“Under these circumstances, based on the above citations, weconclude that till an order of confirmation is issued by therespondents it will be presumed that the period of probation of theapplicants was extended and that they continued to remain asprobationers. The argument of the applicants_ counsel that theybe considered as deemed confirmed is not sustainable.”

Therefore, on this aspect, this Court does not find any infirmity with thefindings of the CAT in the impugned order.

29.The CAT, in its impugned order held that:

“7.2 The second issue for our determination is whether therespondents have mechanically scrapped the selection process onthe ground that the Hon’ble High Court had so ordered orwhether they have actually examined the report of the CVO andcome to the conclusion that scrapping of the selection wasnecessary. In this regard we have seen the original files of therespondents. We find that the report of the CVO has beenexamined in great details by the respondents as is evident fromtheir notes starting from page-18 onwards in File No. C-13019/1/2011-Ptg. Before taking this decision they have alsoconsulted the Ministry of Law who advised them that in the case ofUOI Vs. Chakradhar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in asimilar situation held that the nature and extent of irregularitiesand illegalities committed in conducting selection will have to bescrutinized in each case so as to come to conclusion about futurecourse of action to be adopted in the matter. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt had further held that if the mischief noticed is sowidespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make itdifficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfullybenefited or wrongly deprived of their selection then the only wayout was to cancel the whole selection. The Ministry of Law furtheradvised on the basis of the aforesaid citation that in such cases itwill neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual showcause notices to each selectee. After consulting the Ministry of lawthe matter was further examined in the department and the filewas seen by concerned officers of the department as well as by theHon’ble Ministers. Based on the report of the CVO as well as theadvice of the Ministry of Law obtained the respondents decided toscrap the selection. In our opinion, this decision has been takenafter application of mind by the respondents and not mechanicallyon the ground that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had so ordered.Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted on this account.”This Court is of the opinion that the infirmities and deficiencies foundduring the inquiry are fundamental in nature. The lack of authority to fill thenumber of posts that were ultimately filled; the manipulations in theselection process, the short time given for candidates to apply, the short timeintimated for interview, the changes in the selection committees, lack ofsignatures on the select lists, etc point to deep rooted and fatal defects whichrendered it beyond redemption.

30.In W.P.(C) 3745/2014 (directed against order in O.A. No. 579/2012and O.A. No. 1554/2012), the Petitioner is aggrieved because the CATupheld his termination on the ground of lack of qualification. It is urgedbefore this Court, that CAT did not appreciate the Petitioner’s rejoinder inwhich he produced documents to prove that the certificate submitted by himwas genuine. The Petitioner’s services were terminated by the order dated31.10.2012 on the ground that the educational qualification certificatefurnished by him was found to be fake on verification.

31.CAT relied on DoP&T memorandum, O.M. No. 11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19.05.1983, which states that government servant who hasfurnished false information or relies upon false certificate to secureappointment should not be retained in service. The respondents contendedthat before terminating this petitioner’s appointment proper inspection wasconducted to verify his certificates. letter was written on 10.02.2012 toGurukul Vishwavidyala Vrindavan to ascertain the genuineness of thecertificate. The Vishwavidyala Vrindavan replied on 07.03.2012, to say thatthe certificates appear to be fake. Thereafter, another letter was written on12.09.2012 to this Institute in order to carry out physical verification and

two officials namely Sh. Ram Dayal, Deputy Manager along with Sh. RajKumar, Accountant were deputed. They found that no record was availablein the Institute as regards issuance of this certificate. The Institute again bytheir letter dated 28.09.2012 stated in writing that the certificate was fakeone. After considering the rival contentions, CAT held as follows:

“15. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We findthat the applicant has not been able to adduce even iota ofevidence to establish that his educational qualification certificatewas genuine. On the other hand, we notice that the respondentshave made every effort to verify the genuineness of this certificate.It was only after due diligence that they came to the conclusionthat this certificate was false. They have, therefore, terminated theservices of the applicants in accordance with the directions ofDoP&T mentioned above. We do find that they have invoked thewrong rule, namely, 19(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for histermination. This rule reads as follows:-

“Whether any penalty is imposed on government servant on theground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminalcharge or….”

Clearly this rule has no application in the instant case as there isnothing on record to show that the applicant has been convicted ina criminal case. However, in our opinion, mere invoking wrongsection or rule does not vitiate the termination, which is otherwisein order. As regards his contention that he was confirmed inservice, we have already discussed this issue in earlier part of thejudgment and rejected it.”

32.This Court is of opinion that no fault can be found with the order ofCAT in respect of this case. The petitioner’s plea that he has now annexedcertain documents, is of no consequence. The appointing authority got thecertificates shown to it by the petitioner, verified twice. The officials who

verified it, found that the document was not genuine. That the petitioner nowalleges that he has documents to prove the genuineness of the certificate isof no consequence. When given the opportunity to do so, he did not avail it.For these reasons, the petition is unmerited.

33.For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that the impugnedorders of the CAT cannot be faulted. The writ petitions are accordingly,dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT(JUDGE)VIPIN SANGHI(JUDGE)DECEMBER 24, 2014