Union of India & Anr. v. Harsh Singh & Ors.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 1, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application No.2129/2020 (‘OA’, for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondents herein.

2. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that at the relevant point of time they were holding Group-D posts in the Indian Railway. They had participated in the written test for selection to the post of clerk-cum-typist in the grade pay of ₹1900 against 16.2-3% quota meant for the persons working for promotion to the said post.

3. It was their case that having been found successful; their names were included in the list of selected candidates issued on December 06, 2017. However, a revised notice dated May 29, 2018, was issued whereby their names have been excluded. Aggrieved by the same, they had challenged the action of the petitioners in an earlier round of litigation by way of OA 2486/2018. The same was decided on August 13, 2019 with a direction to the petitioners to consider the representation of the respondents with respect to their grievance and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioners have rejected the claim of the respondents by adducing certain reasons vide order dated November 04, 2019.

4. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the rejection is primarily on the ground that while writing the W.P.(C) 11762/2023 Page 3 written test, they had given a clue of their identity in the answer sheet by mentioning their designation and office address in their answer to question number 10, which is untenable. It was also their case that the answer to question number 10 do not indicate their name and designation. In that sense, their identity remains protected. They have also pleaded parity qua another candidate, who had similarly answered question number 10 but has been given promotion.

5. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on account of certain irregularities and discrepancies detected, the said examination was subjected to a Vigilance Inquiry and it is only after a detailed Vigilance Inquiry that the result notice was revised. It was their case that the respondents fall in the category of those candidates who had revealed their identity or given a clue of the same in the answer sheet. The Tribunal has allowed the OA by stating in paragraph 10 onwards as under:

6. Mr. Vijay Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate his submissions as were advanced by the petitioners before the Tribunal. According to him, as per the instructions issued to the candidate, who were appearing in the written test, they were not required to disclose their name or any other clue which will reveal their identity. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that, the respondents while answering the question No.10, addressed a letter, which they were required to write to their officer, to Chief Office Superintendent (General), Personnel Department, Head Office, Baroda House, New Delhi in the following manner: W.P.(C) 11762/2023 Page 6 W.P.(C) 11762/2023 Page 7 W.P.(C) 11762/2023 Page 8

7. By writing the above letters, they have disclosed that they are working in Personnel department. Though the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not disclosed their names, but have disclosed their designation and also the fact they are employed in Baroda House. He concedes that the respondent No. 1 has neither disclosed the designation / department nor his name.

8. According to Mr. Joshi, the aforesaid is sufficient to disclose the identity of respondents, in violation of the instructions issued to the candidates, and as such their answer sheet could not have been evaluated. The answer sheet having been evaluated, it W.P.(C) 11762/2023 Page 9 was decided pursuant to Vigilance Inquiry that their candidature be cancelled.

9. On a specific query from the Court to Mr. Joshi, as to whether by disclosing their designation / department had any favour been shown / granted to the respondents, Mr. Joshi could not reply to the same. In other words, mere disclosure of designation has not resulted in any benefit accrued to the respondents, including getting more marks. Mr. Joshi fairly states that the Vigilance Inquiry has not looked the issue from this perspective.