Abhay Sharma & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India

23. This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners iikeklid seeking adirection to the. respondent to draw up iselection/merit list %: i.[1] ] the post they have been found successful for ^ppkrltnient to the pcjst of junior Executive (Airport-Operations) in the selection; procesJ initiated by advertisement No.2/2012 and appomt the peti^olieiis to t ^nd for adirection to the respondent to investigate the predentia fietitioners on the principles elucidated in JogmderfPal, w. >.<«/«/. 2014 6see 644. It is the case of.tke: pkitioner; • j i Advertisement No.02/2012 was 'issued by-thg resjiond^t petitioners herein made application to tlie post of Junior liiecutive:(Airport-Operations). It is their case that the petitioners wh^ perfomed w said well in the written examination on September:2,| 2012 were invited tor an interview bythe respondent and Having appeareIt linterview, the respondent has failed to publish the fihajl result to jpost. The respondent merely published apublic notice or. its s c ihc further' 1tte th4salid;' i-" • r {• •; •' L'i; !• • i: pqst:: •• ftijiej; Sfa that an,: the 'i '. • 'I • J_d LL had appeared in the exam should be asked to take the exam; • i • i, - 1 Pie petitioners' case is that they tried all mearis possible lelephonic calls and personal visit to gather when;the responde;, I- ' / fmally declare the result and finish its selection process. The pe pfeiTed to the filing of the W.P.(C) N.o. 2204/201.4.;The> I ! i. ! • theii academic excellence. They are bona fide^ candidate pleaied die competitive exam conducted by the re'sp'ondent on heir merit.,The respondent has chosen a. patentlyj-defective mUhoi„;iy comparing the petitioners against each other instead of compari jwith•all other candidates in a specific centre within Delhi i - •.: I icandidates within the State of Delhi. The petitioner's: casej is • • • _ ] I:. - • ' • i ! leases where there is no other petitioner to compare with, apjititlione particular question paper set, such petitioner has been compared:unsuccessful candidate shov/ing the same number of commo •answers defeating the assertion ofthe respondent,;The candi I •, prepared for such competitive exams are trained Ito: eliminate o !multiple choice style.questions and decide betwebn-prota ioptions.. The candidates, tiius, are bound to:have commo on Lgaih.!) -• I • • 1titi' )nersM-:f: •editd 1r-respondent that selection from Delhi Centre is disproUrtiona M as such impugns the selection process in the State is unteUbl; i • respondent failed to appreciate that the number of|applicants 0entre are also disproportionately high. According to tlie petition respondent also failed to note that apart from'Allahabad,. De: only centre in the whole ofNorth India and candidates from region would have naturally preferred Delhi as a britre d connectivity and accommodation facilities. Accordiiig ito thp p they apprehend that through the unscientific an[4] inc6nipet|en- •inquiry, the respondent would term the bona fide; pbtioners Wted and further may also, cancel the entire selection proc as vitiated. They rely upon the judgment of the!Stipfeme C'ouift in the base ofJogmderPal vs. Stale ofPunjab 2014 6SCC m.

24. This petition was filed on 20.8.2015 and thq s^e listed tie I.,. I: _ Court on 25.8.2015. As counter affidavit was altea'dy filed in k.2204/2qi[4] and the issue being identical the learned counsel • I • Respondent was directed to give copy of the counter'afBdavi iW;P.(C) No. 2204/2014 to the learn counsel forlthe petiticine es: vast!; to; tetter' 3titioners - • I '• 00Is of) also aS::; ngliilj-: ziti foie tike fo filed in •. i'-i /i-^ Wirat Petition No. 8110/2015;. •, I

25. This petition has been filed by three petitioners iriter-ala direction to the respondent to appoint petitioner No.1. k 2ti tl: • •, • " • r 1 • jTunior Executive (Information Teclmology) and petiti;oner kfo.S.'td the i •.. I-. i '' ' post of Junior Executive (Engineering-Givil) with aj fiirther dii; ' ' i i • • • " i I I. the respondent to investigate the credentials-of tile petitioners the principles elucidated in Joginder Pal vs. ofPui iSCC 644. It is the case of the petitioners that they aie, the • " '. - i'.;api3ointees to the post ofJunior Executive (Information:Techno i ' i;Juhioi Executive (Engineering-Civil).and despite lapise o!l they have not been issued any appointment letters. They re leekfLiig a.e pc St of ?ti base )n toi d on, •v'.-id- Mi jab 2u prQvisional gy and tv/o years i:erre d to the inumber of vacancies advertised to the said posts. They alsb roierr:•. •. ' ' i ' 1• ithe fact that they appeared in the written ejcanq, dbndubted '. ' •.. • ' ' ' Irespondent on August 26, 2012 and having beeii invited for Jnilefviewi ^they having successi^lly cleared the interview stage;!and i ". ' •. l" jsuitably selected provisionally to the post, the respondents have; lappomt them. They also referred to the decision of the.resp foL'ind.; fai 3d to r !'•' thi';o. be-;';, editor: indent to-; ikeep in abeyance the recruitment process. Tliey! also, chlallingel the T L (Prateek Singh and others vs. Airports Authority of|India), grounds have already been set out above under! tHe. keading lko.8098/2015 and hence are not repeated again.: thfe respor trged the plea of delay and laches in this case also.. issiomiss- Ld(;nt

26. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing f^r;. I., 'i • petitioners in' W.P.(C) Mo:' 2204/2014, would drfiw'my attintio •' i -. I yarious notings ds annexed by the respondent withiits countei affida^ ppiitend that the investigation by the Directorate Vigilance was yegard to the recruitment to the post of Junior Executive (In:^o iTechnology) and it was in that regard, files were s^-to the V. Department by the H.R as is clear from the pages 139 to 147 oftt i • • '. I book. In other words, it is her case that the recikimfct to 1 Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical) and I Junior Exec (Ehgineering-Civil) was nowhere an issue.'' Even otherwise Submission, that the 'opinion of the committee •that the ? •• '0 I, • •• U'.e paper post of itten examination should,be conducted once again is untenable aiid could |iave given such recommendation/direction without^ going into • i' ^ • • i ''j • -I;'-' '-r'' vacancies advertised vide the sdid advertisement, inviting I;, • " [ applications in general and to allow all the candidates who had i; earlier by giving age relaxation as weil as fee relaxatidn'also u i According to her, the reasons given by the^respondent for tak ng dated November 19, 2014 at page 253 ofthe paper book does e i - • J t • any wrong doing on,the part of-the petitioners,herein and could 1 '. ' • • • • • ! I •' ' ' ^ffected their selection. She would also draw the iattention cfti ', - • ''. • ' j i • ! • to the affidavit dated January 21, 2015 filed by We resilondtiit politest the findings of the Vigilance Directorate to be wrh i.... •; i JInformation Technology and any conclusion thereiih coulc 'considered as in-egularity with regard to the other streamL referred to the various paras ofthe report ofthe yigila^ce d paras No. 5.4.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, para 6, para 8etc. She also cohte| •|the affidavit filed by the respondent on August 5,;2015 ipnmarily based on inquiry into conduct of the eiams.more iwhether there was any irregularity with respect-ito: ths petitio Iwould state that the conclusion ofthe respondent! agaihst the p was on an inference rather than on aconclusive p'roofShe n o;Tesh ap enabl^;i.:i -i'V. l"-i. ecision; reflect'. • • •-t.-, ' •; '1; V ot have s Court and •ega •d to ' She rectora ' i' 1. not be has ^'l!.;e-.i.e that-151;;.' ^ ' I •: •• was.:,;!;..'- Diflcaily;;!-;:]':^-:;' mersi;it; w sp ndec ch (ners titi ijiiitainted and hfid qualified by virtue of their meritland not bfjcaus any.cheating, fraud etc. She had.also; challenged',; ' discrepancy/illegality noticed by the respondent iin their' investig pursuant to the orders of this Court dated Januar}^ il, 2015 and M, I < 1 2015.. She also states, the finding of the Vigilanc^ Diiectorat procedural iiTegularity of the Hall tickets could liot be cowrlloa bannot be imputed, to the agency, as the same were sent to thscandidate; i 1 ' 3y the H.R. department ofthe respondent. Similarl^j, tjie syllabii Written' examination was to be prescribed by•;the respondent and •'! t i- ';• iiilHlllZB i I • ' •tHei - on 4-^1. i-i:-!' s c f the 1 t the • • t and; •'I nc agency. She also states, the invigilation was doneiby the res ' ' ' '' ' i levfen ifacasual report was given by the observers!ofrespondent •;.':, M •; I.|;agenc3'' cannot be blamed. She states, the primaiyIgroiiiid, Iseiected candidates were from the Delhi Centre especijill) [particular State, camiot be a ground to jus'tify thexahcellatic I I Delhi centre consists of 11 States of North India having llig icentres, it is but natural that the applications were more as corn jthe other centres and accordingly the success jate was [nore ii !Wiiitten examination, so also in the interview'and final result] S ponden;hen the tha frc t the i ''' im:,[ a;, as the oaching par dJtQ;!:- 1 thrf i,., 3 casts a ^: •i inasmuch as,- Naveen appeared in Electrical exam iarid no[1] in Operations. Similarly, Manu Yadav appeared inlf and ncjt i:i i)peiations. She has placed before me, the communications e^ the same. She states, everything was in the realm of suspicion i^o&ing more, which would not justify cancellaxioil. j-1

27. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.(C) Nq.4597/2014 would also, submit that evidence,with the respondents to show any wrong ioihg on rpoirt idenciri writH:^:;;^ s-no;:!;?'.; tl- part:6f[ thepetitioners. The impugned action ofthe respoiid^ntlhas causedgtiefiH prejudice to the sewice career and fiiture prospects Of the pet The impugned action breeds, frustration in the pktioners them have crossed the maximum age limit. He states that-in settled position of law that the respondents in acase ofthij ^o separate the gram &chaff, and having not done thaf,.cannot ". " " ' " •''' • " kction against the petitioners as the same would-beivito • •; il[4], 16 &21 ofthe Constitution ofIndia. fes. Mi-. Upendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing; petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 4279/2015 and 6129/2015. mUes nd tiQ.ar aei;s, m f the view, c na;ure takei heed W\e ofi.Aiticld foi the 2016:DHC:9259.l_ showing any connivance between the recruiting kgendy petitioners herein.

29. Mr.Manoj V. George; learned counsel appearing in tvio peti^ons,' I ' 1 ' would submit that the petitipners ai-e higWy qualiField, in one o i '.. ' 1 I • first Class B.Tech with M.B.A/ They are 27 yeafs ofage akct I ' •• • • • - •' i whole caiTier before them and such serious charges jiave adeiT pffect on them. He would also state, that pylons ircm telangana, Delhi and U.P have also, been selected, which cl Remonstrates that the plea ofthe respondents that'the riiaxiiiiuri qu:: - i ' i • ' ': • • •.; - I • bfpeople selected being from Delhi region that too ill till candid ^o are fi-om Haryana or acquired the qualification from Haryar totally baseless allegation. Merely because the maximum number k bandidates ai-e from Haryana or having acquirted qualififat i ' ' paryana, would not reveal that the examination!pikidess ii nirregularities on the part ofthe candidates or on to part ofthe He states, that Delhi is abig region with many centres:. It is not-a Where the selection has been effected only through One singula but IS tln-ough athree tier process, where the irregulaiitiel ca and I •' i.-ij-. • " • 1- 1 ase he is av ng a loralisihg;Madra;s, n. n-e ag< pre tates •. 'i Tom ncy.|:;;; cess ^ Court in the case of Antony, RA and Ors vs. Kris!madm[ M;,.., i •• i • • ' ^r's. He would seek the dismissal of the writ ipetition. The counsel for the petitioners together rely on the fclllowing jiidgir support of this submissions Others, fz) Joginder Pal and Others vState ofPunjabiand Supreme Court Cases 644 _ \n) Union ofIndia and Others v. Rajesh P.U,^ PiithiivalniJ^a kriother (2003) 7SCC285 \ '(iii^ Shakti Sayan Tripathi and ors vs Airportskuthdrity ofIndia '(2010) DLT444. | "

(iv) Naushad Anwar and ors ys. State ofUttai^ firckesh cS:

(11) SCC203 • ' \. • !;;. '(v) Manoj Manu and Anr. Vs. Union ofIndia and ors 2013 171 ' •; i I" Eastern Coast.Raihmy and another (cprmected 'MqhadevAppa Rao andors"2010 (7).SCC.678 fvzzj Kiran Juneja and ors vs. Union ofIndia and ors W.P.CZ) '12130-J9/2004 and connectedwritpetitions decidkdlon-20.12.2007 ^^iii) Girjesh Shrivastava and ors vs. State ofMadhydPradesi ^2010 (10) SCC 707 • ^ ^(ix) Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and ors v^. State.ofPunjab •2006 (5) SC 352-.. [ " K legrhe'd' tents ih Hi -!..i': 'i i • I. •:i '.! f.i aoi[4]) 6 ^ i'^i a? ithii and ^smi'4 12} see: - !•' VS. Mos.i \..\m an Lii_- <ri- $505/2013 (connected matters) decided on 30.7.20'\14. '• On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Jain, leameid Kdditionai. Sol citorll?; ! ' i ' Qeneral, has taken me through the counter affidavit filed.b\;., • • ';_j •' Respondent with regard to the number ofposts advertised and the jproces; i ' I r I ^volved for making selection. 'He would state] when the list:, • ! I.. • successful candidates for the post of Junior Executive Anfbrrnaticjri Technology) was submitted by the H.R cell:;to:the ciairrmn: fbr Jj;' ^proval, the Chairman got suspicious as to^ why'mostbfthi candilatesiil'; • ' i.e 80% approximately were selected from Delhi/eaiyaiis and h mfbfmed the Vigilance,Directorate which carried oWSthe iiivesiigctioni:!]! The Vigilance Directorate made detailed-investigatioln with rfespe:t[1] i ! ' '' texamination conducted to the post of Junior fixecutive (ln:irm jTechnology) and submitted their initial fiiiding, ificUcaliing va lirregularities observed by' them. It is hisUubmission ij tt - • '; " ! • -'.-i jirregulanties observed by the Directorate are mot bnly dijicre|ani; jrelated to procedural and monitoring but are related to:i:i]niilalJ:? jmisconduct for manipulating the written'examination. The Diieclor^t^^ lalso recommended that there is no requirement to vyait for tonsolidated: % infilMai],.. "i'.|.V j.. 5 • (. ). i M -i tHe|;:h •,! Leric&\i ii d; W:\:: on ' nous. 2016:DHC:9259.[1] •. n IIP whole matter to the CBI. He would state that theiCBI ihad not. •:: • i • "l ' • J the case which was ofthe view that the matter must b'e lippked ir to by the,, -P•l'-1 •• i., Crime Branch, Delhi Police. According to him,: tlie iCrime Bfanoh;!^ Investigating the whole case. He would submit, that ifthe recruit process is flawed then the petitioners should not get iadvsiAta i: '. i 1 ' Same. According to him, the recruitment process ^as outs jprivate organization and the investigation carriect out^by the V: ' '' •i i. i • ' • '' 1 ' i Directorate and the subsequent inquiry canied out ik temis jof; ^; " • ' i ' ' • i '. ofthis Court, prima facie it appears the process has been majnipu ih is noted that those candidates who appeared in Delhi hir Successfol. He would draw my attention to affida-yit ^ated ourc tl p ed nent. j•• ^0._aJ - ! 1;|.4i le ( lated'aii'^h'^: ve.. • i- •, W '• beeri;i:i h Jam-lary ! f':. ^015 to contend that the total number of applilarttsiiis the Delhi, tile candidates,appeared in tlte written test was 49.^4% an - I presence of the candidates in first htmdred as pet ^Vriten test vfrgs f land the total number of candidates called for interview wi 78.11; • ' •' ' i Junior Executive (Airport-Operations). He would also sjate,• • ' • ' ' '. i;the position in other streams inasmuch as: in Juniok ! ": 1' i ' ': • r 1 !(Engineering-Civil), the total number of appliqants ^from D i the i. %> in nil ixec hi: ards. WQrei I v.. the preliminary report of the Vigilance. Directorate; and ha ihrough the same from page 377 onwards and drew my atteiition (ponclusion of tlie Vigilance Directorate..He would stai:e, (pohclusion arrived at by the Vigilance Directorate is apossibility an respondent corporation is taking action. There is acogent materia respondent to take a decision. The exani conducted icoiild riot be • ' - • ! • ^ ' • ••• t-. • ^t all. He also stated the ma.nner in which the agesncy Was aippointed by the H.R bypassing the procedure and it is the•te(|uiremei|it (3 jnterest that recruitment to the public authority, which ^is peirfoiii Critical function should be on merit.. He', states, thati lion petitioners have been debaiTed from applying fresh.tedruitrr, ' 1 r There is no mala fide in tlie impugned action., TI-4 priri'ciple:Ohaffcan be invoiced ifit is possible. There is nolstignia attkch iofthe petitioned. The test ofreasonableness hai been mei k V rely upon the following judgments:- ' i ':l ta! i • t • '•,. "I • I •j. II •n 'i i ceiii nie ' •i"-,; )•.trie;: f 4; -a' -', Mi; "'..tHeiil!??; tha L Sharkarsan Bash 1^. Union of ^ndia;^ (1991) see 47 • ••,.. • ',i !

2. Union ofIndia and and Ors. (1994) 5 663

3. East Coast Railways Vs, Mahadev ' I-'.••[••r,....... r tHeU-lr':;; • ' I.j" '"'v ce^s|;;.|:i>i; ling. en pre raiiii ed to indsy •JV iVi h:. L,. ni rwirr 5 see 373 Z The Mihar School Examination Board] Vs.-Subhas Chandra Sinita and Ors. (1970) 1 SeC 648' ':' •' FSo Tarim K. Singh \and Ors,, (2003) 11 sec 7S[6]

9. • JMendra Kumar Ors. (2008) 2 sec 161 Ors, Vso State ofHa'^ana \fM ami Anr. Vs, IL Shayam Kumar and Ors.P M 6 sec IL Inderpreet Singh Kahlon 'and Ors], Vs.. Siatk oj 11 sec 356• j ^ ' 31.' Ms. Jyoti'.Singh, learned Senior Counsel,- iixkei rejomd I.. i ' ' ' $tate that the preliminary report Was submitted; after this QT'W Lirt jpassed an order on May 1,.2015. According to her,! para.[7] and I c ' ', i. • I additional affidavit, filed by the respondents on Aughst;5,^2Cji[5] areference was made to the answering pattern is totally bajsel • ' ' i pattern does not signify any wrong doingon the ]lar •. • • I petitioners/the successful candidates. The roll niimberi' ofthle su i • ' '. ' I pandidates was not close to each'other to even presumJ,' tieyicoi3ied. - That apart, the attempt of.the respondeiits to Qorre, ' •, • i ' iootnmon wrong answers of the successful candidates is iLcc - ' i land overlooking the number of wrong answers which vari^ • • j.! ^ i. !' ^:!.i had A^h is; of 5cess&l: haV.(j late the mceiVed erein;The In. 1-" • luiiiiiiiii mh several questions as compared to some, who atteinpted"some quest: •; i Slie also discount any wrong doing on the parti pf the pqtit one during the written examination, the invigilation was done by the Air Aiithority ofIndia. Even the examination/hall tickets Iwere seit I, Ail-ports Authority ofIndiato the candidates. In other words! the agency, •; !; had lio role to play for sending the hall tickets pr iinyigilations. Ifthe' candidates had not downloaded the hall tickets, the afeenc^^ w; ". ' ' I |ault. In fact, she raised doubt on the comparison ofthe'ans^^er sle^ts of the candidates by stating, ashow cause notice was issued td the agency for destioying the same. According to her, everj^hing is suspi6io the respondents. ':

32. Having considered the submissions made by'leamed|cou • ' • •; I lons.^ ^s-.4s|j-|: -''ri "/ 30rts!i./; I !•" not at' as I the parties, an issue of delay was.raised by,Mr: Sanjay Jain, ASG in W.P.(C) No.6129/2015 and 4279/2015, so ialso in No.8098/2015 and 8110/2015. In that regard,, the plea take ' ' '. ! respondents in support ofpoint ofdelay is as undei*:-; J j • I r,is to' Lisel for ' reamed

3. That awritpetition hearing No. 2204 of26'^14 MohitPahwar & Others Versus Airports Author India wasfiled and listed before the Cburt\on 02M.2014 whereby similar relief as sought in the ips'tant petition was sought by the Petitioners therein ahd\byiotder date.a ' 02.04.2014, this Hon'ble Coiirt while issiiikg\ndtice i\i. the • saidpetition directed the Respondent therhiri: i.e. Airports ' Authority ofIndia to approach this Hon'ble Court before •• a firm date for fresh examination is, publicized.' Tllar:thereafter another writ petition being W.P (cfNo. \l597 ^ of2014 titled Abhay Sharma and Others Versiis Airport^' - Authority ofIndia wasfiled and Ustedbefore tHis Wn'ble'' Court on 24.07.2014, onwhich\date MAHpn%le'kow was informed regarding the pendency df fF.P.fQ. No 2204^ of2014 and also that pleadings in said writ petition are complete. This Hon'ble Cotit vide the sa^^d order directed that W.P. (C) No. 4597 ofmlbeplailQi ^or hearing along with W.P. (C) No. 2204 'pf2(}14. •f. J

5. That vide order da.ted25.07.2014 in W.P. (C) No., 4597 of2014, Counselfor theparties stated \hdt they shall rely on thepleadings in W.P. (C) No\ 2204 of 2014for thepurpose ofaddressing argum'ents as pleadings were complete in W.P (C) No 2204 of

2014. '. - '. •; L ' ' • 1 i ' ij• i. T '1' ' •fi- ';."V a change in the Roster Bench andthe saidpeMon ^ms listed before another Hon'hie Judge ofthis \ Hon'ble Court. Even before the said Court the, rrtatter was argued since January, 2015 itself ': I" I'

7. The petitioners herein werefully aware regarding the notification dated21.03.2014,[however!' instead of approaching this Hon'ble Court the said\ I^^etitioners werefence sitting and awaiting the outcome ofW.P. (C) Np. 2204 of2014, when much water had alreadyflown inasmuch as vide order dated 22.01.2015, this Non'ble Court directed that the Airports Authority hf^Inkia can continue with fresh selection process for appointment to other posts than to which the Petitioners:ai Contenders. • ' 'i I !

8. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in StateofOfissa: Versus Mamata Mohanty reported as (2011) J SCC; 436 has dearly held that section 3ofthe Limitation \ Act, 1963, makes its obligatory on thepart 'qfyhe Court to dismiss the suit orappeal ifmade ^cfier;the^ prescribedperiod even though the limitation is notser up as a defence andthere is ho plea to rais^e the issue oflimitation even atthe Appellate stage because in some ofthe cases itmay go to the root oftlie matter".

33. The pleadings as made by the respondent, aforesaid wen: I'd pveal that the petitioners could have approached the Cour ear iei; •... I y j, I' '• i.I-'. r. [ !:! orii}^ despite the knowledge, having not filed the petition at the point oftime, the petition must be dismissed.' Theireliance pllacec i, ' •-, j ! Jain on the judgment ofthe Supreme Court inthe case ofSMie L appr •op b n^ei; ¥^1 •1; !; ism 'Or Ipigher Education, Orissa.and was granted the beiiefit of recpi\ ir. < i ';., •, i grant-in-aid. Notification dated 6.10.1989 was issiied for Jevis Lg ITRT^s![fig!r[gi|ni I/3p Lrig'thisj pay scale v/ith effect from January 1; 1986. The: said notiflc Applicable only in such cases where post has beenigranted thk be: I,, i - ji •, ' t ' ' 1... grant-in-aid scheme by 1.4.1989. The' respondent! did, nol mie' any tion:\vas- •• 1 • it of ijefiresentation before any, authority to get;the bienefit of tip said. notification dated 6.10.1989. Rather, approached |the High Couii • ' !:.ljl[1].2005 by filing Writ Petition No.r4157/2005iseekkg adii;ectio ihe State Government to pay the pre revised pay'scale with ef'ect January 1, 1986 placing reliance on the various order's ofthe ffigh:C fhe State of Orissa contested the writ petition. ThelHigh Couit pit reliance on the earlier judgment allowed the v^itipetition gWin^ the fDenefit of the pay scale to her with effect from; 116.1984. The.High • Court has held in para 53 and 54 as under:- "53. Needless to say that Limitation Act\1^63: doel 'n apply in writ•jurisdiction. However, the \dqctrim -^ limitation being based on public policy,]the •principleci enshrined, therein are applicable and writ petitions' are dismissed at initial stage on the groiink of delay ^a)id laches. In a case like at hand, getting a'particiilar pay scale may give rise to arecurring cavLse ofaction. In \siie}'. tie on in to, tifom, ouit. Lcingj L unexplained reason granted the relief me^f. \l.6jh84, though even the Notification dated 6JO.1989makes Iy applicable w.e.f I.l.-J986. \ \

54. This Court has consistently rejected.\h[4] donterkion that apetition should be considered ignoring fhe d^elay and laches in case the petitioner approddhes the Chvirt after coming to Imow ofthe reliefgrantediy the Court.in a similar case as the same cannot furkisH d prdper. explanationfor delay and laches'}^ Alitigc^f cai&idt Make up'-from deep slumber dnd,. cfaim impetus ]from]t^ judgment in casesfwhere some d.iligent -person 'hc^d approached the Court Mnthin a reasonable \tikie. (See:' M/s Rup Diamonds &Ors., v. Union ofjndia Ors., kzk •1989 SC 674; State of Karndtaka.& Ors ' v k " Kotrayya &Ors., (1996) 6SCC 267; andlJagdish lil Ors.v, State ofHaryana &Ors., AIR 1997}SC'Q366). ^4. Insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. George bnithe j.1. • •. ! i ! the Kerala High Court in the case of id as. nent of, On is concerned, the Higlj Goiirt hai in para 21 •. -1. 1 •M 22has stated as under:- • !: I ' '.• ' ' • • • •,. ' • ' • i. I' "2], First of all; we will deal with the May aspec 1 m \i„ the yecr

2003. h has been specifically.•submitted oh tehalfoftl^«: wnt Petitioner in f/.P.(C) No.26486/2003 ihit ihoJn £,. contestedJor the selection, he was noj foriunUte to l}e included mthe select list. He came to'/oio# 'libovU A the ajfidavit filed on 1.1.2003 in O.P. I<[o:j8462/Joob - ^''h^S0-d toJhe assigning cf Ms fb,\ additional ground ofless service left. Therefore,- theri m'cis no deja I

22. Ofcourse, as pointed out by the Appellants, iril tl decision reported in Roshan Lai and Ors v. lnternati\)nal Airport Authority ofIndia and Ors. 1980\ (saipp.) 5JC,b 449, even t^'Vo years delay in challenging the appointinent had been found to he detrimental to the Petitioners. when one incumbent has explained, to the possible exten the reason for the delay in cases arising violation oft} guaranteed rights under Article i[6] of the tohsiitutio% such explanation M'henfound acceptable to q reasonable mind shall have to be considered, inl 'theover dll circumstances ofthe case. One 'imponcint circumstanqe is that challenging the veiy same selection process impugning the notification at the 'threshold, there been at least two Writ Petitionsfiled in time. \ Theperson selected had already been thiis facing \the challen^ against their selection at, least in two Writ Petitions,filed in time. In such circumstances, when another ihcuwib'ey.t, with some more details, has come with an e'cjiiql challenge offering explanation for delay, necessarily, as the matter involves the violation and infraction of the rightguaranteed under Article 16 ofthe Constitution, tjke delay can be excused to entertain such yvint Petitions Therefore, the contention regarding delay is ofno avci. for the writ Appellants when they themselves, werefdciyg challenge against their appointments at le'ast in two Writ Petitionsfiled in time. No special or added'prejudice is, in any way, caused to them. " and had

35. In the case in hand also, there is no denial to the!fact thai Nos.2204/2014, 4597/2014 have been filed in this Couk chilen: • - ' • I I: • I •' " • ' • ' ! Notification dated March 21, 2014. Even in the relevant pjira •r-' i " 1 I M ^ ^ •.: • t, vi •1- ^ r ); j!- 5ing:ty.[1] grap tlS of! — ~ v.. •:•( • I fey this order. Noting the fact that the writ petition has not beer; • •• i I. • and also the similarity of the facts of the case in: hand,with the fac t|he judgment of the High Court, the reasons given fey the petilicners in Ijhe petition, which gives a plausible explanation for the dila cr • -1'. 4 r.] f. '!. tsinjl:''' approaching the Court, this Court is ofthe viewthat the delay a

1. • - L ^ wouldnot come in the way for a decision on the iiierit of issueraisec

36. On merits, the challenge in this batch of ipetition notification dated March 21, 2014 whereby it was decided to ' ' ' ' I entire selection process afresh for'the post ofManager/Junior K> -I for the candidates who had earlier appeared in the ekaminat bf advertisement No. 02/2012. During..the peiidehcy If t petitions, the respondent had reviewed the impugned decision; bri jNovember 19, -2014 whereby it was decided lio [Scrap the.^ritire recruitment process pursuant to advertisement lSroj02/20l[2] and i: ifresh advertisement for the vacancies advekiied videiadvertisement inviting fresh applications in general and to allc ^candidates who had applied earlier by giving age relaxation a Ifee relaxation. Even though the decision has not been,challenged IC.on tc sdi:ec n) tprihs le. the • Y\ iiTi:j.-I ''r ch'es thei '• •;j.' ):!lthe writ! V a.[1] the; i.' well as..: s tfee j: '' i •", I •41 •/•'Hi lletters to the petitioners who were found:sui^able:aiid

37. Before.[1] embark to consider the submissions as made the' vi l|eamed counsel for the parties, aword oh the orders passed, by t time to time in these petitions specifically in the iead case WI:. ' i • !•• 2204/2014. On April 2, 2014 Avhen.the writ petition was liste first time, diis court noting that fresh examinatidn iis bonfi s Court 1] iiec.(C fd dii;ed those who appeared in. the examination, held ^rfier direc 'I the y to I p\/\ ]_• the respondents to approach the Court before a fiiin date for 'ihe fresh examination is finalised. On January' 22, ^01 ithis Cc i- ' ^ " submissions made by the learned counsel for th[4] petitioners i • i i regard to 500 odd other posts, thaii; to which |the petiticners contenders, respondents can continue the fresh Iselection process for appointment but with, regard to the petitioners, the|responc[en;s st ^ •.[1] ' i "i ' fexamine the issue of"grain and chaff i.e whether anyliiTegjlaritieM j3e:shown so far as the selection process ofthe j^^titiohers is eoi>ce dnly in such circumstance, the petitioners would jnot have aqiy ^ither for appointment or for drawing ofaselect list/ment li lurt or at the] • I - [ with; I 1: iare OUld I cari;.,; i I V".r right l-.[1] • i-^f I, 2016:DHC:9259,.1, i •i -. • '.-IL-il. (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 644. and.iylaicfi ratib is contained inpara^aphs 10 to 10.[5] of thejudgment which read as under:- • | "10. From the,readingofthe.judgment inIfiderpfeet Smgh Kahlon case one can discern-thefollowing principles: 10'.[1] An appointment m.ade in violation ofArticles 1.[4] md 16,of the Constitution ofIndia would be voicl'It fvoiild ie a miUit}K Since, the services of the terminated not in terms of the Rides biitdn view 'ofi th commission of illegality in the selection pr^ess\invohe the applicability of the relevant provisions. \of th^e/statutes as also the effect of the provisions}ofthe Article 311 ofth Constitution need not he considered. • • ^;; i

10.2. Before afinding that an appointment: has Veen mac. in violation ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution be arrived at, the appointing authority '\miist Hake consideration the foundational facts. -Onfy when \uch foundationalfacts are established; can the hghrprincipl be applied. When the services ofemployees are tkrminhted inter alia on the ground that they rnight Have' didedi and abetted corruption and, thus, eitherfor the'sake 'ofprobily in governance or in public interest their,seryid,es 'shoulfl he terminated, the court must satisfy itsdf that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside a. selection may require the State to establish that the[process was lo tainted that the entire selection process \is liable to..he cancelled. In q case ofthis nature, thus; the 'qii^siion which requires serious consideration is as to whether hue to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and '-rrieritoridm.candidatesshouldalso suffer. ' ^ •

10.3. Adistinction exists between a proven caie of> cheating for a board examination and\ 'an;.iinpr imputed charge ofcorruption where the appointment civil servant is involved.-Only in the event itisfound impossible or highly improbable that the taintedeaselcar >ei ie ran ink) nasi oven of 'o be iri'P' i-'i! • !• M'!'

10.4. Cases which may arise where the selectionprocess is perceived to be tainted may he categorised in the'follo4^ijig manner: •.. i i

(i) Cases where the "event" has been investigated

(iii) Cases where the selection.was made but appoin-tmei was not made. '' -

(iv)- Cases where the candidates were alsti \ineligible 'an the appointments were found. to be contrary th law o rules.' • •;• T' ' I. Ifthe services ofappointees who hadpiifin b/ew yeais-of sennce were terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands,of the State•was:imperafi:^^e'\vik.'.(1) tp establish satisfaction in regard to the 'suf^ciency.of th materials collected so as to enable the Stateko'arrfve at ii satisfaction that the selection process.was tainted; (i) to determine the question, that,the illegalities c'ornmkted wer t to the root ofthe matter, which vitiated ihe^mhrd^selectio process. Such satisfaction as also the-^sufficienc^ oj materials -were required to be gathered ^ reason hf a tnorough investigation in afair and -transparent mannei (3) whether the sufficient material present ^enabledl 'th^ State to arrive at asatisfaction that the offiders in rnajlriL had beenfoimd to bepart ofthefraudulentptirpose or the system itselfwas corrupt.

10.5. Once the necessary fcKtual findings hs.emmerated above are^ arrived at, or it is-found impossible-or highL improbable to separate taintedfrom untainted cases^ ail appointments traceable to the officers concerned couk lie cancelled But admittedly, in the present case,-:although there had been serious impiitations agaimt 'Rdvindirpal Singh ^idhu being at the helm of the dffSrs \cf:the Stat Public Service Commission, all decisions made, by the Commission during his tenure are yet, to te set aside •"i •l-.. " i'"i': r ! 1 -.• I': 'U •i:..1-;•! •.:•].j-: >!' 1 i •: I • • V,. however, it is very much possible to sepai^aie the grai.. from the chaffi.eseparation oftainted candidates,from the imtainted candidates in a selection process which is\not M'holly vitiated, the selectionprocess as awhole as per. t]\& case ofJoginder Pal Singh (supra) cannot he scrapped^;. '. 1 !

4. Today,, the learned ASG appeared, and. whd appearing for the first time, and after some argimients Mm-e heard, the position arising is thai alt that is b'eir}g, asked from the AAl/respondent is that it is bound id conduct ail investigation as per the resources •available with it. with respect to the petitioners/candiclates, \the centres in which they appeared, the' re,suits \of those centres, the answers given by the petitidja^rs and dther candidates of. those centres and every •other', material aspect which is possible to be investigated \in< order }o hiow whether at all, there can be-a separation of the tainted from, the untainted candidates \cmdi whether therefore petitioners are imtainted candiclM^s who muiit getselection? ^ ' T I ' • ' '• \, I

5. Ofcourse, ifthe malaise is such that it is\n6tplpssiljle h separate the tainted candidates from,\the \imtamtJd candidates, then obviously, may be a conclusion cah o'e arrived atwith respect to cancelling ofthe entire:selection.process, however, assumptions and presumphohs \cJn never be the answer when the issue is ofari^ attend takt Ij specific candidates i.e. specific nature o/i^/ze' iisue as- io Vi'hether. the candidates such as the petitioners are tainted Of they are imtainted and also the fact that the entir selection process cannot be found to be.vikaied i cancellation.as a whole. • ' [ \

6. Accordingly, learned ASG on instructions states \thai AAI/respondent will endeavour to conduct a specific inquiry and investigation as to whether' thefe can he I IfUBWIIItiilB •: ! •! i 3!9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order,, the, respond'ehtlhad carked ou., ' i exercise and filed a report b)' vv^ay of.an additional affidavit. Suffic state, regrettably the petitioners have not chosen'|to| file a jesDons such an Important affidavit. Even though the:ori:ler idated May; 1. ! ! j riefers to the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Jogind^r- Pal m:.. J I " • I I I,, j. vs. State of Punjab and others (2614) 6 S^C''644, for perspective that too on the basis of the judgme'rits:referred tc counsel for the parties, the position of law in matters-fof this i ' • ' • ' i ! •' i. •; ! i ! enunciated by the Supreme Court in Inderpreet 'Sirigh • bthers vs. State ofPun]ah and ors (2006)

II SGC 35^, is' well Mieiein the Supieme Court had refeiTed to its earlier judgments paras 46 to 59 has noted as under:- • I i

46. Adistinction moreoever exists betw'een aproveH case ofmass cheating for a hoard examination and ari, •iinproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment ofa civilsenfant is involved. -

47. In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subliish Chandra Sinha and Others [(1970) 1SCC <548],.the conn came to a finding that the high percentage of mdrks obtained by the candidates who appeared at the selection ofthe centre in question did give rise to a.Suspicion thai unfair means had been practised and the Board lyas QHllI:•.; I•• •. -, j; •i' "v;;. i;|the;, \ \ ' [ "• tO;i:;;:;X': qi b b)' ^'ers itttr jej; •; i. I natUiii ds settled,' ^d in } _/ \ \ 'i i '-'I:• I -.V -]; •. ! ' J. v 2016:DHC:9259. -I It was noticed that whereas in other ceriteh\'the hyera^ of- successful candidates was 50%, in 'the icenter \in question, the percentage of passing in different, papers were unusually high rangingfrom. 70% to"l'pd%^ In t'kat'\view ofthe matter, this Court held: '•] ' • "12. These figures speak for themselves..'However, satisfy ourselves we ordered that some answer booJts brought for our inspection and many | such. were produced. A comparison of the ansyver books \showi such a remarkable agreement in the 'answe -'-s 'that no doubt was left in our minds that the \:stiide: assistance from an. outside source, fl^etef conclusion that unfair means •were'• adopted stands completely vindicated. ", • - ! •

13. This is not a case ofany particular indiyidudTwho is being charged with adoption of unfair means, birt of the conduct ofallthe examinees, or at least a v'dst majority of them at a particidar centre. If it is not \a question of charging any one individually with lu^ir^hikam bur io condemn the examination as ineffectiveforAhe.piirposs it was held Must the Board give an opportimify to- all the candidates to represent their case's? We tjiinkindt. Itwas not necessaryfor the Board to give an opportunity to the. candidates if the examinations as a whole Wiere being, cancelled.- The Board, had not charged hny 0ne ynth iinfair means so that he could claim to d^end himself •The examination was vitiated by adoption c^u^ir means, on a mass scale. In. these circimstancei it ivduld be wrong to insist thaf the Board must hM a'detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each indjyidual drne to satisfy; itselfwhich of the candidates had'not..adoptee urfair means. The examination as awhole had to go." Such is not the case here. • ^ ' t! lL_I examination and the sole objeqtion was col^fmed to the exclusion ofa group ofsuccessful candidatei in interview there was no justificationfor cancelling tk^'written part of the recruitment examination and the situation coiM have been appropriately met by setting 'aside- the recruitment and askingfor fresh interview ofall',eligible candidates' on the basis ofthe written examination. • i •

49. Yet again in S.P. Biswas and Others v. 'Stdte Bank India [1991 Supp (2) SCC 354], the coiij t refiised. interfere with the resiilt of the examihatton, as\ it shown that there had been neither any mass,.copying ror thefinal result was shown to have been infii!i.enced by the unfair means byany candidate. | !

50. In those cases also tainted cases M'ere.sepdj^atedfrbm. the non-tainted cases. Only,-thus, in the everit'< it is found to be an impossible or highly improbable, ]en masse orders oftermination could have been issued i' ' '

51. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all kndeavours •to segregate the taintedfrom the non-tdintedi candidate';. r-. • ^ I i" j[2]. We may, at this stage, notice that thefallowing cases would fall in the different categoiiesl which are enumerated hereinbelow:. \ "

(i) Cases where the 'event' has been investigated:\

(a) Union Territory, of Chandigarh y, Dilbagh Sinsh (1993) 1SCC 154 atparagi^aphs 3and 7.., J (b) Krishan Yadav v. State ofHaryana, (199.4)'4 SCC 165 atparagraphs 12, 15 and22.; |,

(c) Union of India v, Anand Kumar Pandej/, (1994) 5. SCC 663 atparagraph 4.

(ii) Cases where CBl inquiry took place., and wascompleted or a preliminary investigation wds, concluded: (a) O. Chalo-cidhar (supra) (b) Krishan Yadav (supra)

(c) Hamman Prasad (siipra)

(Hi) Cases where the selection-Was made hut y\'as not made: ' •- J appdintm.em (a) Dilbagh Singh (supra) atparagraph 5.. i 1 •(b) Pritpal,Singh v. State ofPlafyaha, (1994), 5'SGC 695,^

(c) Anand Kumar Pancley (siipra) atparagraph 4.

(iv) Cases M'here the candidates were also in^i^jhl^ aha the. appointments M>ere found to he cdntrqry td law ot rules:, i ' (a) Krishan Yadav (supra): (b) Pramod Lahudas v. State ofMaharashtra] (1996) 10 see 749 wherein-appointments had been made withoiU folloMnng the selection,procedure. !, ' >

(c) O. Chah-adhar (supra) wherein appqiritmmts had been made without type-writing testt 'ark otheir procedures ofselection having not beenfoltbwed. • { I • i 5d. It is how well-settled that a decision is cm authoritj for what it decides and not what can logically be.dediicecl i"-. • I: i-.u'. 'f \ /, •.; -.••4.•'r •I:.:-';' !• •SB:n ik;: - i -t •; ! i^ -'I: •L; 45' and Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank -Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91]..

V.

54. In Benny T.D. and Others v. Registrar of\Cdoperatiye Societies and Another [(1998) 5 SCC 269],, this Coiirt repelled a contention raised therein that in view of the findings of the Public Inquiry Conmission thai there, hps been tampering ofmarks in respect ofseveral cafididat^es and as such there.has been no fair and] dbjective selection, piiblic interest demanded annulment of ihe entire selection. This Court held that the salnd could not be done as the same would tantarhount to gross \iolgtion ofprinciples of natural justice wPiich cannot be brushed aside on the ground that public-, interest] demands anmdment ofthe selection.

55. Yet again in Onkar Lai Bajaj and Others V. Union oj India and Another[(2003) 2.SCC 673],:this; Court yvhile • dealing with a case'' of en masse canceUqt'iofi of.'he licences granted to the LPG DistribiUorsi as h residt whereof unequals were said to have been tlubbed by reason ofarbitrary exercise ofexecutive poiver,. thesam.e y\^as held to be impermissible stating; | M "45. The solution by resorting to cancellation ofall yvas worse than the problem. Cure was worse than khe disease, hqual treatment to unequals is\ nothing inequalit}>. To put both the categories - tainiedy cind rest -on a par is wholly unjustified, \ drbitrc •unconstitutional being violative of Article of Constitution" i • ' It was further held: ' hut the iry, the "46. The aforesaid observations would apply with equal if not more, force to DSBs if media exposure that, the, allotments were made either to the high.poliiicd ••:--^i •'ik';': • !••• -if •••'.I; en masse by treating unequals as equals wiihdiit even prirnafacie examining any cases exposed by the niedia / This Courtfurther observed: -. | '."35. The expression "public interest" or] "probity- \in governance" cannot be put in a. straitjadket. fPublic interest" takes into its fold severalfactors^ hm-e, cannot be any hard-and-fast rule to determine M'hat is. public interest. The circumstances in eacHpasewoii^d determAie whether government.action was taken in piibkc imterest or yvas taken to upholdprobity in governdnce. i

36. The role model for governance and decision•tak ihereofshould manifest equity, fair play andjustice. T-,^ cardinal principle ofgovernance \in a'ciyjlizfd\ society based on rule oflaw not only has to base on'trdnsparency but must create an impression that the decision-malang ypas motivated on the consideration of probity. The Government has to rise above the nexiis \of vesied imerests and nepotism: and eschew window-kressing. The act- of governance has to ' withstand. '\the \iest ' judiciousness and impcirtiality and•avoid\arbi¥ary capricious actions. Therefore, the prihcfple of governance has to be tested.on the touchstone ofjustice,' equity andfair play and ifthe decision, is Hot leased \on justice equity and.gaxr play and has\ taken Ato consideration other matters, though on.the.fad,^ ofit, ihe aecision may look legitimate but as a matter hffiict the reasons are not based on values but to^ achieve popillar 'Accolade, that decision cannot be allowed toloperate. 56..Yet again in Union of India and OthL vj P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another [(2003)'7SCC 2851 •this Court observed: '. -i' "•Applying ft unilaterally rigid and arbitrarj^ standard to 2« he ojor -.• t ^ • •:: V:^ \ •••: j;• i I • ^I.'' • <r 1 complete go-hy to coritextiial considerations] throwing to the winds the principle ofproportionality in goin^farther than what was strictly and reasonably;to \nieet the situation. In short,, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extteme and unreasonable decision ofcancelling the entite 'selectio\.s, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even Sn thSjacti situation found too, and totally in excess of the nati. and gravity of what was at stake, therehj^ virtua rendering such decision to be irrational." ' • • i ! 57.. The High Court, therefore,,cannot he said'to 'be right in applying the principle of mass cheatingcases in the instant case. 'i ^. I i i ' ' ' •, j • j -

58. Contention ofMr., Dwivedi, as noticed hereinbefore, centers around condemnation ofselection and not of\he candidate. But,- when the services of the employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abated corruption and, thus, eitherfor[the sake, of probity in governance or in public interest, tlieir •services should be terminated; the court must mti'sfy it}selj that conditions therefore-exist. The court'>M'hile setting aside a selection may require the State to esiablish that the process was so tainted, that the entire Selection process is- liable to be •. cancelled. We,. however,, do not agree with the submission of Mr. Dh^an: that the decision ofthe Commission M'as collegiate in nature as it IS well lmown that one ofthe members ofthe Commission was biased, other members..could.also be''influenced\by him-. [See Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khdlid Mujih Sehravardi and Others, (1981) 1see 722] '• i '

59. In a case ofthis nature, thus, the question wAich requires serious consideration is as to whether- due to misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious lal re lly ••h"j- •! j' iiiiEteaHi 2016:DHC:9259:r i i • I aiiiiik: i'1v^herein the Administration cancelled the t3Aping test and fiiced d^e for.fresh typingstest., The Tribunal justifiedi die cancella a even ion and issuance of anotification for afresh test. The Higi Court in spt kside the order ofthe Tribunal, in awrit petitiohfey fehose the Appeal, ca adid viiho were successflil in the' first test. The High Court dire31: petitioner to proGieed with the selection process.' refening to its earlier judgments has held as under::J "14. It is evidentfrom the above that while nb candidate acquires an indefeasible right to apost merely] bicause he has appeared in the examination or evenjojmk dplaJs in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy tin uhqiialifiefl prerogative to refuse an appQintment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit •of the candidates ck reflected by the merit list prepared: at Ae \eAd 'of tA selection process. The validity ofthe State's^kecisionnot.th nrnke an appointment is thus amatter whicPtid not beyonk judicial review before acompetent Writ-coiirt'Ifpny kich decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directioT;is can be. issued in the matter. The X)00[ xxxx )0{XX xxxx^. Suprerr G

28. lhat is not, however, the position,r,o,.uru •case. The order of cancellation passkd byfhe competeAt authority was not preceded even. by a: Prifna fiick saiisfaction about the correctness,ofthe.allegations rnade by the unsuccessful candidates leave alone an inquiry ^n^ the same. The minimum that was expected the authqril in' tH:e ins'tant ates the; ourt •M

29. There may be cases where an enquiry may be called for into the allegations, but there may also be cases, wJiere even on admittedfacts orfacts verifiedfroml record or an enquiry howsoever siimmar)^ the same maybe', it ispossible -for the cofnpetent authority to take a decision, that there are good reasonsfor maJcing the order which the authon^! eventually makes. But vi^e find it.difficult to^:sustain ak order that is neither basedon an enquiry nor even aprima facie vieM> taken upon a due and proper.application ^f mind to the relevant facts. Judged by 'thdt\ siaridard thb. order of cancellation passed by the competent 'authdrity falls short of the legal requireitients quashed by the High Court. '

30. We may hasten to add thatwhile application ofmin -the. m.aterial available to the coj^^petent.authority is essentialpre-reqiiisitefor the making ofa valid order, requirement should not be confused with the. siifficiency of such material to support any such order. Wikher oAnot the material placed before the competent authority yvcis in the instant'case sufficient tojustify the decisipri ta:ken by it is not in issue before us. That aspect may havd assumed importance only if the competent authdrit); whs ^slicmntj have applied its mind to whatever material whs'available ' to it before cancelling the examination. Since\ application ofmind as a thresh-hpld requirementfor d valid'order Is. conspicuous by its absence the question \vhether tlae decision was reasonable having regard th ihd.'material before the authority is rendered academic.\ Sifficiency cr otherwise ofthe material and so also its 'admssibility.to support a decision the validity whereof,is b.eingjiidicially reviewed may even otherwise depend upon t\>.e facts arid circumstances ofeach case. No hard andfast rule can he formulated in that regard nor do we propose to do io in this case..,.: ' ' ' I and-was rig qiisi J f ! •• •••I- 2016:DHC:9259._i: „iL credibility of the material placed before the authority It may also- depend upon whether any such exercise feasible having regard to the nature ofthe controiersy, th^e constraints of time, effort, cmd expense. \But ^what zi absolutely essential is that the authority mafdng ihe orde'^ is alive to the material on the basis ofwhich\itpurport^ to take a decision. It cannot act mechanically, or iind'er an impulse, for a writ court judicially reviewing any siicn order cannot countenance the exercise ofpower vestecl in apublic authority except after due andprgper'[application of mind. Any other view would amount to cbndoning a fraud upon such power yvhich the authority exercising th^e^ same holds in trust only to he exercisedfor a legitimatl purpose and alongsettledprinciples ofadministrative l^wl

32. The next question then is whether the selection she be finalized on the basis of the test held earlikr or matter allowed to be re-examined.by the aiitlaorftyin context ofthe representation received by it. In'oi^ opinio). the latter course would be more in tune with the dem^nd.'i ofjustice andfairness especially when a second test \has been conducted in which all the in service candidates llav appeared. The result, of this examination/test has however, been declared so far apparently because of pendency oftheseproceedings. uld the the

33. not, thb If upon due and. proper consideration: of thd representation received from the candidates who we?e imsuccessfiil in. the.first examination, the compifent authority comes to the conclusion that the test earlier helli s-uffered from any infirmity or dfd not give 'a fair opportunity to all the candidates, it shall be\free to pa^s h fresh order cancelling the said examination aft^r recording such afinding in which event the \second test conducted under the directions of the TriUmml would become the basisfor tne selectionprocess tobefiiaalized in 1 -i- •I..'1 -: ••1. k 'if ' i'"... i.: i -•.. V:' •: 'ii •'i !. -j •; i 2016:DHC:9259.; I shall stand cancelled andthe process ofselectiomfinaljzed on the basis ofthe test held earlier." •'\ I

41. Similarly, in Joginder Pal ml others (si/ipm),;tlie Supremq C aifter referring to its judgment in Inderpreet Singh \KaMon ch I, I ' ' ' which has been reproduced above,., has in paras 3^ and 40 •se Court umm). las held as under '39. It becomes crystal clear-that the cohcer/i of'the Court. M^aS thatfor the misdeeds ofsome candidates, meritorious candidates should. not sufj^r. honest and Therefore, endeavour should he made' to. segregate 'the tainted candidates from'those yvho were without dny\stigma.an\d had been selected because of their sheer merit and not o:a account ofany illegal considerations. We yvoidd also wk to reproduce some oftheparts ofihe contusingjiidgnent authored by Justice Dalyeer Bhandari (as -HisMordsh^p then was) with the aforesaid message, eloquently anhl impeccably:

118. Undoubtedly, in the selection process, there have been manipidations and irregularities at the b^ehest ofR.k Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab •Pubtic.ServiA^ Cormmssion. On careful - scrutiny of., thel facts'- ark circumstances ofthe case, in my consiflered opinion, tHe Pligh Court ought to have made a serious endeavour }o segregate- the tainted from, the non-tainted' carididtites. Though the task was certainly difficult, but by Wstretki of •imagination, itwas not an impossible task.: ' XXX t'l. i'i

I. • r • • ^' - ' I.. for the misdeeds of some candidates, Honest and gdod candidates should also suffer on en masse caricellathn leading to•termination of their ^services? Wipuld tlrose honest candidates be compelled, to stijfer without tlierk' being anyfaiilt on theirpartjust because the Respondents find it difficult to segregate the cases offainted] candidc from the other candidates? The task may be djf/icmfor Respondents, but in my considered view, in the interes 7 7 ^7' •*- > i 1 rtes the J all concerned and particularly in. the-internest of honest candidates, the State must undertake this task. The unscrupulous candidates should not be allowed td darJag^e the entire system in.su'dh a manner where innocentpecpt'e also suffer great ignominy andstigma: | i i',

125. This •Court had an occasion to examirib k simila. coniroversy in. the case ofOnkar Lal Bajafi, case (sup."'a^ In that case, there M^ere serious allegations 'of'polit'ca. patronage in allotm.ent of retail outlets: \of petroleiir.[7] products, (LPG. distributorships md ] SKO-LD.O.dealerships). This Court laid down that how\c6ul'd a larg~ number ofcandidates against whorn there wds \not e insinuation be. clubbed M'ith handful of thosk ^ho h said to haye been allotted dealerships/distnbi^itorships account ofpolitical connection andpatronage? Tfiis 'coiirt clearly stated that the two were clearly uh,equals. Equ.ci treatment to unequalsjs nothing but inequality): %is is most importantprinciple M^hich has been laid doim in thk case by this Court. The Courtfurther obseri^ed that-to\pit both the categories, tainted and the rest, dipar ks wHolly usjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional, beings violqtive ^of A} tide 14 of the Constitution. In somewhat siiTiilar circumstances, in this case, the Government; insteak if discharging its.obligation, unjustly resgried to \tlle cancellation of all the allotments en masse\by trei^tii^g unequals as equals without even prima fixcie examikiAp their cases. Those officers whose services\were affXtld ve 'er s o ^348®™™:i r- I.;.; •V:- i-.'; }--'r I ^" ••i ' '^1 ' n''-: • "]' •W- I i i ev.en then, this Court while,^setting aside th'e order of\the. Government cancelling the, allotment, Idppqinted Committee of two retired Judges, one of this. Court 'and another from the Delhi High Court,^ and j tfiey. requested to examine all 413 cases, and decide the matter after getting the report from thai Committee.apppinted by the Court.

40. In visw of the above,' the issue of entire selectio process having been vitiated would have arisen only i findings of the Committee were that it was' not possib distinguish the cases of tainted from the nqn-tainted ones and there was a possibilit}/ that all ofthem 'hduld have got •the benefit of wrong doirigs of Mr. SidJnil and h accomplices. Fortunatelyfor these Appellant^, it is not so as they have been found innocent. The Appellants gs ensconced, earning a safe place,, once thdy dre removec from the category ofnefarious persons. Though ihe taintec candidates have rightly received their coineiippance bu the innocent persons cannot bepunished, witfi tfiem. Thus itis difficult to accept thefallibility conclus.idh ^ the High Court." • • -r 'th e'to

142. From a reading of the. above judgments of the Siiipreme C jfbllowing positionemergegj- ^;; ihe -V '' • I- \~y\ • i i-'. / Durt, the ting and adid Eites who giv ris 3 to 'a (1)A distinction exists between a proven case of fiiass ! i i I an unproven charge of corruption. •; ' (2) When ahigh percentage ofmarks obtained by the ca; appeared in the selection in a centre in question did

41. In the preliminary report of the Directorate lof Vigi looked into tlie procedure adopted for the recriiitment for t Jimior Executive (I.T) fi-om different aspects including a application probess, written examination, intervi.few, result. Mitional^, pr( an:essyhichiii \ DStI of • ^V le pi liver;isem^nt,j M' •i; "4.1.[3] It is apparent from the agency's'- 'inqpiiity adopting 9/10 digit roll numbers that the agency was already having pre-printed Test booklets/OMR sheets in advance before conducting the exam for advertiserhsnt no.02/2012. This is against the spirit- of.fair and transparent conduct ofexams.:, • I, ' • • • i• I 4.2:4 The emails to the candidates requestirig to download the hall ticket were not sent before commencement oftfie written test on 26.08.12. Also it was not checked that how many candidates had downloaded their, hall tickets. This casual approach might have Jed to:lower\ p'ercentage (19%) ofcandidates hirning upfor the written exam. 4.2.[5] The half ticket issued by the Dte:. \Of HR to candidates was not having their scanned photographs and signatures uploaded at the time of application matching the same during the written.examine conducted by the agency. The details !o/ the o recruitment applicants were forwarded by Directordfe HR to the, agency in excel format does^ not include t scanned copy ofphotograph/ digital or scanned signati ofthe candidate. Therefore the signature and\photograp ofthe candidates were not verified during/after the writtei exams. This creates opportunity for proxy sittings in th exam...... I / itii ali 4.2.[6] It has been observed that the observer have give their report in a tailor made form i.e Total Np. ^f Candidates and their attendance.at the 'specific cen HoM'ever, no specific reports/Comments 'irt the form of general administration i.e any -dQuht about the question/copying or leakage of exam or.' any specific complaint made by the Candidate at the partidular center was not given. However,. Directorate'of HR \sou^Tt tie Of:>r. o: he re h c i •• -.i •. •1: i-Hi 'j. M.i.; •; i f H-'v ' ^ y r:;i •i •.,'1: •-i Tr• ••'.. • i-.;; i ^ • • y.;'-;.1;•: !;; 26.08.12for the post ofJE (IT). After receipt ofthe result from the agency the result was uploaded on AAIwebsite on 16.10:12. However, it has been observed.that no crosscheck or re-verification of the result viz^a-yiz marks obtained by_ the successful candidates has been done byt he HR as a confirmation.. •; 4.2.8. It has been ohseiyed that after- feceiying tl' applications online,, all the other activities were dp? manually or through Ms CPR. This is not'\in\ spirit online recruitment systems. 4.2.[9] There is a scopefor unscrupulous,dajididates to rt away with the question paper in the beginning of exam or adopt other sophisticated electronic gadgets to copj> ad leak the paper which can be solved and. passed on to the candidates.sitting in the examination center sinbe there is no preliminary screening ofcandidates.: i i ' 4.2.10. There was no syllabus provided to t^e agency/candidatesfor written examination. IThe.patterri o^ examination was provided to the agency/candidates in th$ name ofthe syllabus

144. Similar^, under the, heading "Resulf ttie |followihg we: • 1 • ( • ' I:observations ofthe Directorate ofVigilance:- •, '• [ ^ 6.2.[1] Following has been observed from the list cf; selected candidates: ' ' \ ' j 6.2.1.[1] 11 out of 11 General candidates, Aoiilof 5 \ OBC candidates, 2 out of[3] SC candidates and, 1 out of[1] STcandidate selectedfrom thepost arefrom Delhi Region. i Out of 20 candidates selected 14 candidates < are either. n ' ' •' 1'-', • ' ' ' I' I:>•. i •> '! *!• ' 'i " ' i,• i j; •.i. 'i; ^:'y:-j.:! respective categories compared to any otherstate/region. 6.2.1.[3] 6 out of U general candidates, 3 out of 5 OBC candidates M>ere selected due to higher fwi-itten mark and scored lower marks in interview. •. '. I 6.2.1.[4] Out of the 11 selected general cariclidates candidates have securedless than '70 percentages]ofmarl in their qualifying degree, out of which 6 candidates 65% marlcs or below in their qualifying degree.^ • 6.2.1:5 Out of[5] OBC candidates seleqiedfdr the held DOSt were having 63% or lesser marks in their Qualifying degree hut scored very high marks in written exams loM'er marks in the interview. ':• ! I, ar d 6.2.1.[6] Out of 20 successful candidates 8 candidates are from Maharshi Dayanand University and,'3 candiclates arefrom Kurushetra University. ' '. 6.2.2. Following has been observedfromUhe list b unsuccessful candidates: ^. i ': 6.2.2.[1] The 12 out •of 14 unsuccessful general candidates have secured marks in written •ex;ams ranging from. 73 to 76. All these candidates were algoodmix of all India students. Am.ong these 12 unsuccessful geneilal candidates 3were having more than 80% ofmarks, 7. wir having more than 75%> marks and 2 were \hdving mc than 70% marks in theirqualifying degrees. '• 6.2.2.[2] The remaining two general cand\da belonging to the Haryana scored very-, high marks written exam, but could, not he selected as one canclida\e scored very low marks (5) in interview, and the s in other V-.1. xj. • •••..P: T, i--; • -r

3. •: ' • -• • mi Bm 1 iP'-- •.-r. I: l-i' •' - -' V •, • ^ i •f: r -. • • •. •written exam but could not be selected as 1 OBC candidate scored very low marks (4) in iritervieM' and the other candidate did not attend the interview.^; 'Both 'thes^^ candidates have secured less than 70% marks- in their qualifying degree. ' i 6.2.2.[4] The only unsuccessful SC '- candMa. belonging to the Hajyana or studied there- scored highe. marks in SC categor)^, but could not be selected due to ver poor marks in the interview (11). The \candidate secured 72% marks in the qualifying degree. \;; t y has 6.2.2.[5] The presence of the candidates ofHaryam region or having qualifying degree from Hafydna in t? list of unsuccessfid candidates is very low candidates out of 36 and are mentioned in Para 6.[2] 6.2.2.[3] and 6.2:2.[4] of the report. These. 5 candidates scored up. to 20% more marks than other' cdndidates ^ ' 1;i I their respective categories but were not selected diie: very poor marks in interview or being abs.erit. The, candidates could have been selected if they\ had sdprea even 50%) marks in the interview. 6.2.[3] Majority of the general candidates fmally select3C for the posts appears to be predetermined candidates by virtue of their high scores in written examination. Th analysis of the results indicates that' the rharks of the •written examination-Mre manipidated to favoiir a s^et of' candidates mostly belonging to Haryana state or studied., there. These candidates are otherwise not'acddemicdll I, i sound and does not appear. suitable for;• the \pos considering their credentials and scores in interview. i/e on y 2.2, na 6.2.[4] The five OBC candidates who. have,scorecfhigi marks in written examination for the five [vacancres. iwptiij rhivrmirmwmm '• • • i.; "1 •• •ji'; • • I. 'i' (5.2.5. One of the SC"candidates who have scoredMgh marks in written exam, for three vacancies in S(^-categoiiy also appears predetermined.. However this eandi^a\e could not make it tofinal selection J)esides scoring higher marks in'the written exam 'among SC candidates duk to poor score, in interview. •', •' j • • •' ! !' ^ • i I ' • • 1 I 6.2:6. The candidates who have secured bare minim:um bf 5 to 10 marks out of30'in the interview are.also 'conring in the merit listfor giving offer ofappointment \diie tg the'ir higher percentage in the written test which 'is-ha weightage of.80%. However, no action wds \aken in regard by department ofHR. • j I. ^ 6.2.7; The random checldng ofwritten test'mdrks^^ obta by the candidates appeared for the intei-view was ccn out by the''team and it is obsei-ved that marks of'one of V candidate Ms. Mona Taneja- (Roll No.lld^$7)] comqs: 103 where as the marks obtained, has beefi shd^m as 1 the resultsprovided by Jvl/s CPR. •This creates Hoiibt validity ofthe results.. \ vmg this inea rieci le to U in over 6.2.[8] The majority ofcandidates selected 'are from -Delh Region in which Haiyana state alsofalls. Thd\RMgion-wisc mimbers of candidates who applied for\ the [post a.id subsequently appearedfor written test are as.under yvhi^h.. shows that 44% candidates appearedfor written test arl '. \ from Delhi Region. However, in thefinal selection is 90 candidates are fromDelhi Region. Center Name Ahmadabad Allahabad Chennai. Center Code Total Applicant

948. %\ of Cahdidaies' I t ', - •appeared Written testtotalfd >144 (22.06%. '222-(23.42%). - •-1;'-: I... 'J. I 1 I Trivandrum 6 2004 206(10.28%) Total 23061 4426 % ofDelhi Region candidates among the candidates appearedfor written test: 44% ' • i % ofDelhi Region candidates selected cimong \the candidates calledfor interview. 69.6% • '• % ofDelhi Region candidates finally selected i.e 18 candidates out of20: 90%) I >1,

45. On OMR sheets of the candidates, called 'for the intbrview ! I" following are the observations:- "7.2.[1] ' Following has been observed while analyzing the OMR sheets usedfor the M>ritten examination:' \ i. In the column ofOMR sheets name, rollNd., booklet series and Test Form No. etc., has been filled hy\ tie candidcites in ink orpencil asper their desire, no cleai{ cut instructions is given againstthese columns. \ \ a. The OMR sheet does not indicate thepost code, \da ofexamination etc. • \ • Hi. The OMR sheets supplied were not having S'eria Nos. 7.2.[2] It has been observed that Dte. Of hA has\ n ensured thefollowing before/after conducting the exam: a. Vetting ofthe answers keys from, third indepeAde agency. •; 1• b. Checldng of sample test booklets/sample 0.1\ sheets. \ l c. Reconciliation offinal residt with the OMR shdt. ot 7.2.[3] The marking of the answers in the OMR sheet done by the candidates by darkening the circles with FIB nt m ^thej i -i I.. j 1 •1 • i; • I candidates belonging to Haryana state or studied, there or have scored higher marks in written exam \have.marked same options for the 10 wrong questions in' this test booklet. It appears that these candidates] were, supplied with answer keys wherein some answers were, detiberciplv marked wrong, probably to control the scoring'ofmarlis in the written examination. An extract.ofthe table in respect ofthese candidates is as below: Roll. No. Name \Wrong. 'Si. •A Place of Residence Marks • • obtained in written exam wrong Successful Mona Taneja Karnal, Hajyatia 101 17: •an. fee 45 (4j 72(4) wei 'ing ion 'candia f scored mcfrks Hiei 'Pf\\ same I j atesi,; j;i V -hav^ l higher | exam'i j (21-33(3): '• '58'M 73(i)\8l 57:m - 10 2(2, sw^rs •;. Unsuccessf i:l Successful.Vineet Asiwal Sumil Sandeep Chaurasi a Bahadurga rh. Haryana • Jind, Haiyana Kanpur, U.P 88 32}. 96 24 95 25 21(4) 29(2) 4^(4) 72(4) (i) im dlmv answ 2\l(4) 2f>(2j ^P(h 3(1. 87(4j 17, I9( cinsw ''2m:; 73(1)82: rs '• I,' W)\ - smj:... 87m 1-/0, vr''rl:m(2i ')-lQi ers: i •(3) s' t. with answ.er keys -wherein some answers were\ d0herately marked M'rong,-probably to. control the scoring ofmarks in ihe writteA examination. An extract ofthe- table-in respcct ofthese candidate's is as below: ' ' Roll No. Unsiiccessf ul Name Ms. Joyti Yadav Anurag Duhan Residential address Gwgaon, Maiyana Rohtak, Haryana Marks. • obtained in written' exam Wrong • answers 22\ 21' No.-v\W{ any swt rs /laving optigi: same r idi, o iates: have iliighm. i m 1 exam': mai-ks wnitte 14(4) 0) 66(2) (4) •IfP. Answkrs •: i8(4^: •/ 6i(4yl "':i'8(2}\r: •72i\(3)\-:. ml. 1^72;MS Answers 7.2.[7] The table 'D' series.booklet s]i^s \that the candidates belonging to Haryana state or stiA^iid thete of have scored higher harks in written- exark haie m:ark^ec same options for.the 11 wrong quesiioks \iri this tes', booklet. It appears that these candidates, werk suppliea with ansY^er keys wherein some answers were dklibe^ateh marked wrong, probably to control, the scoring. 'ofmaAs- ir the Mmtten exarninatidn. An extract ofthe tabled,in reLec ofthesecandidates is as below: Roll No. Name Residential address Marks obtained in written exam Wrong answers SI w.-ong answp havin No, dfi:• ! • t14866 Sunil Phoiir Sachin. Pitnia Mahesh Yadav Vandana ManoJ Choudha ly Panipat, Haiyana Gurgaon, Haiyana Rewari,. Haiyana Gurgaon, J-faiyana Delhi 98 22 100.20 91 29: 92 2g 103 17 86(2). 112 (2)ans ver: J,:ri vi. \ [• i • ! • 97(4). W n 39(2). 78(4). 82 (4), 86(2)] h: kns sm-A 79(i).,.\ 83(1);.97(4), Ij: ii: (2) wei 8(3). 39( 7S| S[2] II. answei'sr 2). '4). (4) '2). 8(3). f[2]). -4). a 86(2). aiiswe •36(m\-'\ •55(4)'. 'mix 83(1). 97(4). •55m, '97(f). -11 rs; 3m •M[4]) • 79(1) 97(4). -11- I ): i ",--1- !"••;! 8(3). 39(2). 18(4) 82 (f 86(2) II.2(i) aliswe. 8'(3). 39(2, 78(4) 86(2) 112(. rs, ir • -55(4, (ih ^.83/1. •• 9m ^)-lll >r'• ^ 7.2.[8] It has been noticed that there is;a relations between the same questions in the different, series, findings are tabulated below: ' •. hip SI. No. ofthe same questions in various series 21 l4(-7) 46(+25)

58 L l9(-7). 22(-7) 51(+25) 26(-7) 38(-7) 5l(-7) 54(+25) 58(+25) 10(+25) 23(-h25) D 3I(+10)' 36(+10) 39(+I0)' 43(+IO) 55 (+10) 8(+10) Th Remarks All questions same different •number depen'ding •be. t K Ig er al I: ''Deduct 60 iftotal exceeds 60 •;, It is evidentfrom the table that all the tesUbdoklet sJries are mathematically related and answers in different,sdries can easily be computed y\nth a single key. 7.2.9. On the basis of the above relationship •coptpar ofthe options ofthe same wrong questions among diffe series was carried out and the same tabulated helow: SI. No. ofthe same questions in various series '.son ^ent 21 01) -14(4) C D Remark's 26(3) 29(2) 33(3) 45(4) 58(3) 72(4) 73(1) 82(3) 87(4) Ms. Mono Taneja 19(3) 22(2) 26(3) 38(4) 51(3) 62(4) 63(1) 72(3L 77(4) • Ms. Jyoti Yadav 46(4) 51(3) 54(2) 58(3) 10(4) 23(3)- 102(4). 103(1) iim. 117(4) Sh. Yadav Maim 31(4) 36(3) 39(2) 43(3). 55(4). 8(3) 82(4) 83(10) 92(3) 97(4): • Sh., Manpj Choiidhqry The number 'i within Ibracket !shows the • No. ]option j: marked the I candidate. • All Ith candidates have same for questidns ivrespe^ctivc. oftheii^ seties for which the ansyvers wroii!>] nan opt these art The table shows that.the candidates belonging to Haryanc siate or studied there or have scored higher marl's ' written exam have marked same optionsfor the. 10 wro, questions irrespective ofthe series. Thus it 'can be inferr that predetermined candidates were suppliedwith answ keys during or prior to the examination resulting in sai options for wrong answers. Such type cfkmilarity luh marking one of the option out offour is abriprmal 4?ii cannot take place without outside help during or prior examination. i. ir er ame 'le 0} to &Dprovided by the HR, folloMnng is observed:. |, • •.. i • a.-r No colunm was provided for mentioning'the Roll No. hence; there exist possibility to exchange the test bookletsfor copying and also providing the'ansM^ersfroin outside. \ b. Test Date and Post code \vas not meiitioiked. c. There was no instruction on wrong janswer negative marking.; •, "•• •• I. d. - Instruction for use of mobiles/calculators electronic,gadgets is not mentioned in the test booklet. _ ': 1.i. ' e. No instructions"were given in the bookletfor fi, up the OMR sheets. ' ^ I or f The used test booklets were sought from- L directorate but the,concerned officials 'hdvei no clue whether the test booklet are given to the cbndiilates aft^i completion of written examination or still ayaflable wkl.. the recruiting agency. This confirms that.Directorate'^p}^ HR did not pay much needed attention to the recruit 7z> merit process. 8.2.[2] Thepattern ofthe question paperfonit discipline kept at par with non technical disciplines; i.e 5C questions from the IT discipline and 50% frok Genei Knowledge/Aptitude/Reasoning/English etc. ' Whereas the other technical disciplines 70% ofthe questions were, from, technical side and 30% questions werefrom Genera Knowledge/Aptitude/Reasoning/English etcl. The trealmen of IT as non. technical discipline is not justified Jnd appears that no thgoutwas given for deciding,pattern '% •a in f iiJ'-ililllnii'llTnBillflTliiW'n • i i-"'-

47. The final conclusion ofthe Directorate ofvigiiarice is as Lindc! t:- From the observations made through stage wise anclj.ysis brought out in previous sections, following, conclusio can be made: ' ns 9.[1] The recruitment process, has been manipulated favour a set of candidates belonging to Delhi regior. especially Haryana state or those candidates '^who \haye obtained their qualifnng degree from this \state. The higher written marks of these candidates with kheir poor credentials do not match Mnth the. average marks obtainedby allIndia candidates with better credentials. iFiu^thei^ has been noticed that alargepercentage,ofih'einopti(}ns wrong questions matches with, each othkr whicih f 9.1.[2] The OMR sheets were left blanlc by ihd^ candidates •and the same were filled up later o before declaration results and these concocted answer sheets^ (Oli/IR) yvei submitted to AAI tosupport the predetermined result ofth written examination. ' " ' • ' ' ! o 9.[2] The •agency for conducting the.written exam wc hired by falsification of the facts, eliminating cdmpetiticn and without verifying the credentials. Further^ the agenc yvas given free hand in the conduct of the exUnjihation and noproper checks and balances wereput inplale.ltherJfo} involvement of. the concerned HR officials, in ti manipulation cannot he ruledout.. • ' i | ! 9.[3] The integrity ofthe results provided by the,agency also doubtful in view of the wrong questions in the\ test booklets and discrepancies in the answer ke^s likk no answers for one question and error in rnar^ks lobtained by one ofthe candidate i.e Ms. MonaTaneja. } 9.[4] The recruitment agency M/s CPR does not falls under the purview,^ofthe Corporate Vigilance' department, therefore detailed investigation of this case coiild not be carried out. However, detailed, inv,estigation\ \)f. irregularities in the appointment of the agindy mdy be ordered for fixing -responsibility of the concerned. HR officials. IS 148..That even the Committee constituted by! tlie ^;Chainii lAirports Authority of India on the advise of:the,the then; ' i Additional Solicitor General also submitted its fe|jort on !^o' ir X":'.• •,.. rgi-r'irinrR^irTa'fi^iiaiii • i ' • • I •!" I ' • "" • If ^ i -i '!,• i"; 'V !. -•I ''.-:;'.'; ^ I"; ' ii; f •• •;1.: '. 1 ' i':j -W H " • i f,fViJii';ii •• •i 'Jr.; Id m" arn0^J I •i • fn\ I ''I p|ossible to correct the faulty process of examination by ponc ue ' • I • r • \fritten test again without involving the previous;agency isub edt 'to--1!. --i:: maintaining all other conditions of the recruitment.;

49. Inthe report filed by the respondents after undertaking the pre ! • • •' •, ' 1 ds directed by this Court vide itsorder dated May 1^015, it is sta' • - • ! ' i with respect to 45 petitioners the report details as uAder;;-- "Report on Recruitment to the posts' of, 'JM flT/Engff- Airports Authority of India has been 'a^ised by the Learned ASG who appeared in the matter on Ql. 0.5.2015 to conduct an enquiry into the exams conducted mrespect bj Junior Executive (Engg-Elec), Junior- R^ecutiie Livil), Junior Executive (IT) &Jiinior Executive (AirpJr Operations) to examine • whether there\ was., any irregularities w.r.t thepetitioners. Accordingly, a cor/mittee consisting of \officers Vigilance andHR Department have tabulatedHhk data ana analyzed thefacts.: •;ecl The credentials of the 45 petitioners are tabulated and attached as Annexure-I to this report ', as per khki candidaturefor the respective post. Thepost wise cirAlysh ofthe facts are as under: are

1. PATTERNOFRESULTS OFWRifTENEXAPlINATION ' I ! • The Region-wise/Cmtre wise numbers cf cahdidates w no cessiii.^;/; i;,| v; -ii-i •• i::i • I- [. ': ' h rl '• • i-Vii. f. • * ! Ahmadabad AUahabdd Chennai Delhi Giiwahcili Hyderabad Kolkala Mumbai Nag,pur.Trivandrii Total Applicant 641 • 843S (36.39%)

219. Candidates appeared Written test for 144(22:06%) 222 (23.42%) 647 (18.3%) 1962 (23.25%) 36(16.43%) 440(13.91%) 370(21.11%) 244(18.,02%) 155 (15.39%) 206(10.28%) candidates in I"' 100, as per written test 73(44.33%) too, car cat iritt didates erf rvieM u 'O 38 <67.8:6%yr. "'•••I The success rate in terms ofpercentage, of the candidates who appeared for. Delhi as Centre, is] disproportion high., alfy i' All the 5petitionersfor Junior Executive (ITj) cippearedfor the written examinnfinh n-f l^olhi -fnv /jn^\ the Mmtten examination at Delhifor Junior'lEtecWve appeared for the written examination at Delhi Centre belong to Haiyana. (IT) and b) Ahmadabad Allahabad Chennai Delhi Guwahati Hyderabad Kolkala Mumbai Nap^pur Trivandrum Total Total. Applicant 9429 (40.77%) %• of Candidates. appeared. for Written test 860' total 3173 (49.94%) 324 • •Presence ' 'candidates in 7'' \100 as per Avritten'test \0 •'1 '0 >94(94%) •1): •i ^100 Shri Naveen (Roll NoJUSlS) S/o Shrv OH, 'Prakash. o ofpetitioner did not appear int he written test) Rernainim le m i:'! i -I "ir-t tgl, of[7] ndidtites'i j a It.-t V "i, t ! r '• I ! 2C 7(7mm •265/."'f: j: Center Name.A'hmaclabad. Allahabad Chennai Delhi Gmvahati Hydevabad Kolkata Miimbai Nagpw Total Total Applicant •188 1136- 2652 (33.90%) %. of Candidates appeared Written test total for IIS[5] (43.67%) 3D •291 '2713 Presence of candidates in 7" 100' as: per written':test. •1 73 (73%) •4 \i4\ •joa All the 04petitionersfor Junior Executive (Civil)':appecired for the writtefi 'examination at Delhi Centre\ 2 of 'kern belong to Delhi andone each to Rajasthan d tfPl •' i d) iK Ahmadabad Allahabad Chennai Delhi Gmvahati Hyderabad Kolkata Miimbai Nagpur Total Total Applicant 4711 (33.88%) % ' of total Candidates appeared for Written test ^J[7] 1717(46.38%) '256 •Presence of •candidates in T i100 'as pe, •written] test '0- '2 68 (6S%) Out ofthe 8petitionersfor Junior•Executive (Electriccl), 7 appearedfor the written examination at Delhi Centi-e anc 1appeared at Hyderabad centre. Out ofkpetitione-s, belong to Haryana, 2belong to Rajasthan &I eqch belmg to UP & Andhra Pradesh. ' • ' ' i

2. •Answering Paitem: rririiriiirprirTimm '. '•:•'..[1] 05- 'al "'nd [. ididaies led •i ? ••lyiew It[6] (79:45%)

6. •: 1: I.. •,."l Qff:\ for i To ca c'ct interview tdl^-rhbX ididatks ]fIjH 'f 0!(7lM%)k •16 > 1 JE (Omrations): Name Candidate Nitesh Swnil Kohli of Maim Yadav tl Hilesh Yadav Akash Yadav Ombir Yadav Ramveer Yadav Parshant Aggarwal Suinit Kumar Anand Roll Mo. ! 17072 121348- No. of wrong answers 20' •17 \Common IVroi answers •11(2). '.56(3). '64(^ 69(2). 70(1 77(1)- 7 no. HOJ,: 11(2).. 46(.).. \56(3). • I69(2). 77(1)- 7 no i' ilCi). 56(3),, 69(2). 77(1). 7-no 11(2):. 56(3). 69(2). 77(1)- 7 no 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). 56(3)..- 69(2). 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). 77(1)-. 7 NO. 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). \ 70 77(1)-7 NO. 11(2). 56(3). 69(2).. m). 64(4). 70(3). 46(1). 64(4). 70(3) 46( 64( 70( 46( 64( 70(3) 46(^) 64(^) 70(3) 46(1) 64(4) •70(3) i 46(1) 64(4) \46 64(- 7G(3j, ^. I i # Sh. Manii Yadav (Roll.No.118065) did not appear in i interview for the. post of Junior Executive (Airpc he ft >ort: -I'- '( '• ' I -'i f 5i. i • 1 j • k- • Candidate Siinil Ashii Dahiya Rohil Kumar Parshant Kumar Chander Shekhar Saini Name of Candidate Sunil Kumar Yadav Rohit Arora Siidhir Arora Sumit Sehrawat Deepak Yadav } 17077 Roll No. i!;• "Li i n Li lO.. answers No. of wrong answers li answers; I.! '26(1). 51(2). 98(4). 104(3). 3m. 111(1)-7 no,. ',26(1). \51(2). \98(4). •I 11(1) 36(3^. m). 104(3). •7 n[6]. \26(I). 51(2). \98(4).-: 111(1).36(3). 63(4).. 104(3). 7 no. •:26(1),; \51(2).- I98(4). ' 111(1) • '¥(V- 63(\). 104(3). 7no. \ I26(1).:51(2). \m). ' i-lim 36(3): ^3('4) 104(3) -7 no. Common, answers 3(1). 13(3). 28(2). 62(2 63(3), 70li). •108(2). i09(^). 116(4) &\l7(4) - '.10 no. Vrong HO. • 13(3). 28(2). 62l[2]). 63(3). \70(1). 108(2). 109(2). 116(4) & \117(4) -,10no. I 3(1). 28(2). 63(3). 108(2), 11.6(4) & -10 NO. 3(1). ' 28(2): 63(3). 108(2). 116(4) &\117(4) - ]10 NO. 3{I).: 13(3). 09 '2). 117(4, •13(3) 6p) 70(1). 109(2). 13/3X - li en iii-. Name of Candidale Ankur Yadav Gaurav Rishabh Yadav Abhay Sharma Salyender Singh Anil Mor Hitesh Tanwar Roll NO. 11733.[5] No. of wong answers 11- II Common Wrong answers | 1(2). 36(1\) p(3). • 80(4. '85(2)..86(3) & '93(1) - 7N[6]. \i(2).. 3,6(1). 46(3), Sp(4)..85(2). 86(3) '93(1)-7 nI •'(2), 36(1)] 46(3).: ' 80(4). 85(2). 86(3) ir 93(1) - 7 No. '1(2). A6(3)..85(2). 86(3).93(1)-7 No. "• •1(2). \46(3). 36(1). ?0(4). •36(IJ. mx 85(2). 86(3) 93(1) ~ 7No. • 1(2). 46(3). 93(1)-7 NO. 1(2). - 46(3). 36(1). Wi). & m): m 93(1)-7 No. Moreover,'. as same questions were, there in different series questions papers (in different orders), these!' 27petitione have givenfollowing 6common wrong options; Booklet Series A 11(2) 46(1) 56(3) 64(4) 70(3) 77(1) Booklet Series B 51(2) 26(1) 36(3) 98(4) 104(3) 111(1) rs Booklet Series C. Booklet Series D 28(2) ML 13(3) 1(2) 36(1) 46(3) 117(4) 63(3) 70(1) 80(4) 86(3) 93(1) There yms mathem.atical relation between;questiJm'. booklets of different series, as evident from qiiestior;intiiHrn:nnrMmin i • •;-vl i i'i ! • I-.' •- -r v:...!..'J. •'•I H. I ".' • 1 r •• L A -J- !•.....'.[1] '.i r- • 87-120 61-94 1 Ouastion booklet,Series A Question booklet Series C 1-43 18-60 44-60 1-17 61-67 114-120. 68-120 61-113 Question booklet Series A Question booklet Series D 1-10 51-60 11-60 1-50 61-104 77-120 105-120 61-76 ' i 1 I •' in different booklets were notshiifflevL; 1 i Booklet Series A: As no.'ofpetitioners Mnth Booklet Series A is only 1, analysis has been made by considering more successful candidate. ' ^ " Name Candidate of Mono Taneja " (Petitioner) Virieet /Isiwal Roll NO. 111479.• No. • of wrong answers on Common Wrong answers ! 21X[4]). 29(2. 45(4). 72(4). 82(3),: 102(2)- 2f(4). 29(2. 45(4). 72(4). 82(3). 102(2)- '26(V- 33(3). 58(3). & 73{ 87(f) 11 no. \26(3). '33(S). 38(3). I). 73( 87(^0. II )w. & case of Ms. Mona Taneja-(110487), M/s. CP has shown 101 marks in written iest,.^-:^i^hereas answer iiisniirii'Mtmi' • aI r.; •i i r. ' i • i; 4-;.! •.ri - • •'\ • ' viJ 'MJ;. n;. 1;• J,V.•i; i;.?: J y-av..i --i ' • • • -i:!--- •. 'A fA (Petitioner) ^6(4). • 51(3), '54(2). Sml 72(2). 90. 9'8(4). 99(1)..102(4). '103(1). ld6(2\. p2(3)- c£- '(4)-,16no. AJay Yadav (Petitioners) 113029 33 \}0(4)..23(3)\-27^. 46(1). • 5^(3, '54(2). 5p(3, •72(2). 90. 98(4;, •99(1). 10 \103(1). 10 \112(3) & \(4)-.16ho. 2(4). ^(2). Name Candidate Sunit Phoxir of Roll No. No. of M'rong answers ' Common I ' answers >8(3). \ 36(31 •39(2). ' 78(4). 79(1).:S2(4). 83(i)., 86(2). 97(4).: 112(2)- 11 ho. I Mahesh Yadav 114866 29 8(3). \36(3). 39(2). \55(4). W[4]). \79(1). 82(4), 83(1). 86(2). 97(-() !1'2(2)-11 no. Moreover, as sanie questions,were there in different-series quesiion papers (in different orders), these 5 petitioue. have givenfollowing 9 common wrong options': Booklet Series A Booklet Series C Booklet Series D 26(3) 51(3) 36(3) 29(2), 54(2) 39(2) 45(4) 10(4)- 55(4): 58(3) 23(3) 8(3) 72(4) 102(4) 82(4) 73(1) 103(1) 83(1) •;: 87(4) 117(4) 97(4) • ! 102(2) 72(2) 112(2)- ! t •T I • • ' M •\! j 1" M A Question booklet Series B 1-7 54-60 8-60 1-53 61-70 111-120 71-120 61-110 Question booklet Series - A Question booklet Series C. 1-35 26-60 36-60 1-25 61-90 91-120 • " 91-120 61-90 A Question booklet Series D 1-50 11-60 51-60 1-10 61-110 71-120 111-120 61-70 IE (EmSo Civil): '• —:.l.L j.—11 1_ I ! j Booklet.SeriesA: As no. qfpetitioners with-BlokletSeries A is only 1, analysis has been made by considering ojie more candidate. Name Avinash Kumar Mghavar (SC) Prabhat Singh (SC) (Uttar Pradesh) Roll No. Common Wrong answers 17(3). 31(2). 39(4). 8m JO NO. 17(3). 31(2). 3m. ^7(1). 109(1). 10 NO. 18(2), 36'(2) 60'(4) 89\l) 7(4) - 18(2) 36(2) 60'(4) 89(1) 7(4) - BopMetSeries ]}; No. ofpetitioners with BodMet Series is 3, analysis has been made. D -iaiiiwiii i ••; 1^" ^ '-M • i.ri.! • 4-T -1-- - • ' a:.[1] r li: 109(1)- 9 no. 109(1)- Mohit Panwar (SC) Aide Kiimar Krishnan (Pe/iiiqneij 2(NA) I8(NA) 45(NA) 46(NA) 49(NA) ' 53(4), 57(NA) 82(4) I09(NA)-. 9 no. including NA(Not Attempted) 13(3).:' 18(NA). 53(4). m). - (NA)-,[5] no. i/c n'a 13(3);. 18(NA). 53(4): 93(2): 109: (TV/lji- • no. i/c HA ': As brought out above the average common yyrong answers 'for 3petitioners are around 7. However, being the less number ofpetitioner the comparison of comm'on wrong answers among all the question booklet series is difficult. • i ' ! As there is no negative inarking in the test'the reason fa not attempting a question creates doubt- about the candidate. 18(3) 24(1) 37'f[3]) 53'(4) 8d(4) 9'4(4) •108(2 i69(. Even after not attempting several questions, the petitioniZr Sh. Mohit Panwar.got fairly good marks-'in wr examination and 8 mivrks out of30 in intervieyv.: But..... ihe petitioner was in-select list. Further. the\9 questions ne has not attempted are same as ofthe otherpetitioners with similar options. Itappears and indicates that the'petition is a manipulated candidate. i ^ ms m 27ei,;hj KlIINH-liWHin: Ji • ' I: r.; - I: '! i u i 1 •' i'M': i: !.i -r ! l""' i-. Ij ij,f -i'Vi. Uv[. f.M a.! 0 Series A 1-10 11-15 16-36 37-120 Series B 27-36 1-5 6-26 107-120 37-106 & Series C 12-21 22-26 27-36 II & I- 77-120 37-76 & Series D 32-36 & 1-5 i 6-10 11-31 57-120 37-56 &' Remarks Reasqntng, GK & Non lechnicat ' i question Teclmicdl qiisstjon All the non technical questions among all the series from 1 to 36- & subject specific technical qukstion st from 37^ iipto 120. -As evident from above table sequence ofthe questions are same. -,; are arts the Name Candidate of Roll No. No. of wrong answers Common IVrong an. Jaideep Kandoia Kalvala Sweekar 2Pf[3]) 37(2) 3901) '50(3) 7g(2)- 71(3) 85(3) 88(3) •lQ7f])i]13(4j-10no. ' 2'9(3).37(2) 39(4) 70(2) 71(3).85(3) 107(1)'113(4}-W

20. Booklet Series B: No. ofpetitioners with Booklet Series is 2, analysis has been made., ^.[1] ! ^ ' B Name Waseem Akram (QBC) Roll No. No. of wrong answers Common Wrong answers Shakti Singh (OBC) Successfid 35, 6(4) 14(4) J8(3) 48(2) \56(2) 57(3) 69(4) ''72 (norattempted) •74(NA) 75(4) 77(1) 7^(1) 85(1) 93(1) '99(4) \l06(l) 107(NA) 'I08(NA) \l09(4 n0(NA) 115(2) 120(3)'- 24\ no.. i/c (NA-No. attempted) 19(3) '6(M), 14(4) 18(3). 19(3) 48(2),56(2)' 57(3), 65/3) 69(4) 72(3) 74(N[4] 75(4) 77(1) '79(1) 85(li 93(1^ •99(4).: 106(1) 107(NA, 108(NA) '•,109(4) 110(3) 115(2) 120(3) -24 no. i/c (NA-Not attempted) Booklet Series C: No. ofpetitioners, with Bboklet Series is 3. • ' •n i nw'mjjiiiwMW • I • •: I:: r - ! i. |- -[ •; 1•]': i !' 1; •[ r; 1 l-t !;; '-i-i Hi Manish Selvawal Parteeic Yadav '95(4) f10(2)- 10 no. m 4(3) 42(3) ' 44(3) 55(1) 77(2) 79(4) • 85(2) 95(4) 110(2) - 10 no. •35(4) 39(4) •41(3) 45(4)1 47(1) -49(l)\ 51(2) 63(1) m) 76(1) •86(1) 90(3)\ 102(2) \1I1(3) J4no. ' '35(4) 39(4) [41(3) 45(4) •47(1) 49(1) ^51(2):63(1) i69(4). 76(1) mV 90(3) •J02(2)' •,111(3).14no. I- i I Booklet Series D: hh. ofpetitioners with Bi^pMei\Series is.only 1, analysis has been made. ^ •:D Name Candidate Rakesh Saini of Roll No. Common IVrong-an. 11(3) 19(4) 23(3) -24(3) 4.3(1) '49(4) 56(1) 57(2) 59(f) 65(2) 66(i) 82(2) 90(2} 91(3) 103/4)'. 105(3) 108(3).. 109(4) III 113(1)\115(3) 119(1) •we 70\3) 99(3) 06r[3]) V • I rTiTyiimiriirriiirjwiiiii'iiii ' ]\ '"'i' •'*': r, • i"'-' "i': I'"'- ^^•.); I i; /i;. i: •! • t r ?!• Relationship between questions in different booklet series There (w?as mathematical relation between question boo different series, as evident from question booklet foi JE Elect.) herein below. ' ' i ! ' dets of' Series /( 1-36 37-120 Series B 27-36 & 1-26 107-120 & 37-106 Serie.'i C 12-36 & 1-11 77-120 & 37- Series D 32-36 & 31 57-120 & 37-56 Remarks •Reasoning,. GK Non question leohmcal Technical questiod 1J-L-J..-L same. Moreover, as same questions were there in -differdnt question papers (in different orders), these\6pititioneri have given common M'rong optionsfor 17. qiiestions: \ •. i out Sf. Mo. ofthesame questions invarious series.[4] B C D-. 28(3)- 18(3) 3(3). ^ 23(3). 29(3) 19(3).-l 24(3).^. 39(4) 109(4) 79(4) •;; 59(4) 45(2) 115(2) 85(2) - 65(2); S0(3) 120(3) • 90(3) ' \ 70(3) 62(2) 48(2) •. 102(2): \ 82b;" • - 70(2) 56(2) 110(2) • [ 90(2) 71(3) 57(3) • 111(3).; 91(3) ' 83(4) 69(4) 39(4) •, • 103(4) ^ 86.(3) 72(NA) 42(3) 1 106(3) 89(4) 75(4) 4.5(4) 109(4) 91(1) 77(1) 47(1) 111(1) 93(1) 79(1) 49(1):[ 113(1) 99(1) 85(1) 55(1) ir9(I) 1 107(1) 93(1): 63(1) ' ' 43(1)' 113(4) 99(4) 69(4):. ^: 49(4); 120(1) 106(1) 76(1) \ 56(1) Sh. Jaideep Sh. Waseem Akram Sh. Manish Sehrawat Sh. Rake.sh Sdi a Kandola &Sh. Shakti Singh Parteek Yadav, '•

3. Other observations: a) No clear cut. instructions were there whetherlcandldateW^oll no., Booklet series, test form no. is to be filled with or pencil resultantly some petitioners have filled..the pen andsome withpencil. • I codeform.. 'c) There was no negative working. But;stilhpetitioners ha answered all questions. Usually, when riegatiye. marldng. there, candidates try to answer,all questions. Moreover cases, it has been observed that candidate 'has eraseij the t options marked earlier and left them blank E.g. Mr. KQhl}-\l (Roll No. 117204). This appears to have been done to rn'an'pi the ranking to accommodate General Category candidate. d) Almost all the petitioners either belong'to Haryanc have done their studies from Haryana RegioA. \ ir Re •r.-i-: •; i:•, - • I •••i..ti:•."i r.; 'j Inot,, i not omei, \ no. •• -( vt;: ' •' i •• • ir fi of ' ••••1 ^i|' '-•.M but ' e) Petitioners' marks in the academic studies 'were not go still they yvere able to score high in written test'.; odi f),0n test booklets, no column has been providedfor men the Roll number. Hence there existpossibility to exchange bookletsfor copying and alsoprovidingthe tm^wersfront outs

4. Conclusion a) Comparing the analysis ofthe results ofthe all thefotr question to which petitioners belong, it can be concluded doubt that, the-recridtment process has 'been manipiH favour a set of candidates (petitioners) belonging to Delh mainly Haryana state or those candidates M'hd haveobtair qualifying degreefrom the state. The higher, written mhrks candidates with their poor credentials do not match average marks obtained by all India candidates wit. credentials. Further it has been noticed that a largeper their options ofwrong questions matches with mch other abnormal while marking one out offour dptions.. Had. th fair competition such similarities in the: results examination in all.these discipline was notpossible by a. Followingpossibilities existsfor the manipulation ofm tio th mng' itest ide. ! I'T Do;sts iri;\ hi atedftd^ i:reg.iqn. ea'th^ir vi centage 0 which (is ereheenk of nym h the ecm^y,[ -.i:: ij._ (1^ Mi '•• ••".!" ' "••• • v' •• '.r •55.• >-;-.-j. •v:] • •'.: i;: ' were filled up later on before declaration \6f results and concocted answer sheets (OMR) were submitted to AAI ib siLppyrtW ^ thepredetermined and result ofthe writtenexdmination. ' ' ' ' 'hese'f^l b) On careful examination of the answering patterns, {result m-itten examination, the"Centre ofexaminations imdcredentiah,fhe petitioners vis a vis other candidates,' it 'appears that" petitioners belongs to categoiy oftainted candidates. " 50! When the initial decision was. taken on JanuaiyiSl, 201 to M written examination, the report ofthe Committed ahdthe Direc E fi ^ iiV^i • fe'l redp[4]:jL|;y-<3.01 (I ar a^e:?:.t)f^ '.- '.V ^ce,, l!; !St ofIVigilance with regard to recruitment process to the pjbst o were available. Aperusal ofthe report of the Directcjrate of^ evlen though with regard to IT exam, it is noted, IQce, the inability in adopting 9/10 digit roll numbers, the 'agency wasi • ' ' " i 1 having pre-printed test booklets/OMR. sheets injadvahce befor conduct ofthe exam; it was not checked as to how many candi<ia downloaded their hall tickets; the half ticket to thecandidates;: •• • • • ', I I; _. • 1 • • I having their scanned photographs and signatures uploaddd at the application for matching the same during the written exami ci^oss check or re-verificatioii of the result vis-a-vi^ marks obtair • ' - i the successful candidates has been done by the HR as a confirinati ^ehc al • j e the r w;es: Was ti not;;{[ K/. • ^' !•- ' tX'.-nie ofi u ifi; no ec. by Dn;.] 1