IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 1295 of 2009 & 6603 of 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 1295 of 2009 Between: 1 P. Samba Murthy S/o. P. Narayana O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Kazipet (R.S.) 2 Mallaiah Narsaiah S/o. Narsaiah O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (R.S.) 3 V.N. Chandran S/o. V.K. Narayana O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (R.S.) 4 V. Basavaiah S/o.V. Appa Rao O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (R.S.) 5 A. Anjaneyulu S/o. A. Ushaiah O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (R.S.) 6 K. Srinivas S/o. K. Brahmaiah O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Kazipet (R.S.) 7 K. Venkateswara Rao S/o. K. Lakshminarayana O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Kazipet (R.S.) 8 S. Sarangapani S/o. Yellaiah O/o. Chief Ticket Inspector, South Central Railway, Kazipet (R.S.) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Union of India rep. by the Secretary (Establishment), Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 5 The Senior Divisional Personnel Manager, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 6 D.V. Chennakeshwar S/o. D.V. Jagga Rao South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 7 M. Shekar S/o. M. Muniratnam South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 8 M. Naresh Raju S/o. N. Kalidas South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 9 R. Anuradha Devi W/o. J. Venkat South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 10 L. Pandurangam S/o. L. Manikyam South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 11 L. Ravi Prasad S/o. E.S.R. Sastry South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 12 B. Bhavani Prasad S/o. Rajamouli South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 13 M.S.G. Subramanyam S/o. M. Sarangapani South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 14 K. Yadagiri S/o. Late K. Rajaiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 15 G.L. Somayajulu S/o. G.S. Murthy South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 16 Ch. Ganesh Rap S/o. C. Hanumantha Rao South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 17 V. Winfred S/o. V. Winston South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 18 D. Kiran Kumar S/o. D. Keerthi Kumar South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 19 V. Mahesh S/o. V. Venkatesan South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 20 C. Ravi Babu S/o. C. Chandra Shekar South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 21 S. Ashok Singh S/o. S.I. Singh South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 22 B. Rajkiran S/o. Gangya South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 23 Anup Kumar Pandey S/o. Dhurander Pandey South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 24 M. Ramakoteswara Rao S/o. M. Venkolanaraiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 25 K. Tulsi Das S/o. Late K. Venkataswamy South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 26 C. Dinesh Reddy S/o. Jeevan Reddy South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 27 G.V.S.S.L.N. Sharma S/o. G. Gopalakrishna South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 28 N. Sridhar S/o. G.M. Narayana South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 29 R.V. Yogender S/o. Venkatnarsu South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 30 M.S. Vasu S/o. N. Narasimulu South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 31 D. Vijaya Kumar S/o. D. Obleshu South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 32 Janardhan S/o. Satyanarayana South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 33 B. Nagulu S/o. Bhulya South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 34 R. Rajendra Prasad S/o. Pochaiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 35 Ch. Madavi W/o. B. Santosh South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 36 K. Issac Praveen Kumar S/o. K. Franklin George South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 37 Ch. Gopal Rao S/o. C. Hanumantha Rao South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 38 B. Suramouleshwar Rao S/o. B. Narasaiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 39 D. Srinivas Yadav S/o. D. Mallaiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 40 N. Srinivas S/o. N. Ramulu South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 41 M. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Shankaraiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. 42 A.N.S. Prasad S/o. A. Veeraiah South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one n the nature of certiorari by calling for the Order dated 22-12-2008 in OA.No.388/2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and declare the same as illegal, unconstitutional, and is in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same by directing the official respondents to conduct a fresh selection for formation of panel for promotion to the post of Head Travelling Ticket examiner in grade Rs.5000-8000 (RPS) in pursuance of the Notification No.CP/529/2/5000/9, dated 10.06.2008 as per the extent instructions and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.. G. Vidya Sagar for Mr. K.R.K.V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: MR.P.GANGI RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 6 to 42: Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy And Writ Petition No. 6603 of 2009 Between: 1 The Divisional Railway Manager (P) Secunderabad Division, S.C. Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, II Floor, Secunderabad. 2 The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Secunderabad Division, S.C. Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, II Floor, Secunderabad. 3 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Secunderabad Division, S.C. Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, II Floor, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 D.V. Chennakeshwar, S/o. D.V. Jagga RAo, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 2 M. Shekar, S/o. M. Muniratnam, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 3 M. Naresh Raju, S/o. N. Kalidas, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 R. Anuradha Devi, W/o. J. Venkat, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 5 L. Pandurangam, S/o. L. Manikyam, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 6 L. Ravi Prasad, S/o. E.S.R. Sastry, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 7 B. Bhavani Prasad, S/o. Rajamouli, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 8 M.S.G. Subramanyam, S/o. M. Sarangapani, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 9 K. Yadgiri, S/o. late K. Rajaiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 10 G.L. Somayajulu, S/o. G.S. Murthy, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 11 Ch. Ganesh Rao, S/o. C. Hanumantha Rao. South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 12 V. Winfred, S/o. V. Winstaon, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 13 D. Kiran Kumar, S/o. D. Keerthi Kumar, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 14 V. Mahesh, S/o. V. Venkatesan, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 15 C. Ravi Babu, S/o. C. Chandra Shekar, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 16 S. Ashok singh, S/o. S.I. Singh, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 17 B. Rajkiran, S/o. Gangya, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 18 Anup Kumar Pandey, S/o. Dhurander Pandey, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 19 M. Ramakoteshwar Rao, S/o. M. Venkolanaraiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 20 K. Tulsi Das, S/o. Late K. Venkataswamy, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 21 C. Dinesh Reddy, S/o. Jeevan Reddy, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 22 G.V.S.S.L.N. Sharma, S/o. G. Gopalkrishna, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 23 N. Sridhar, S/o. G.M. Narayana, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 24 R.V. Yogender, S/o. Venkatnarsu, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 25 M.S. Vasu, S/o. N. Narasimulu, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 26 D. Vijaykumar, S/o. D. Obleshu, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 27 Janardhan, S/o. Satyanarayana, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 28 B. Nagulu, S/o. Bhulya, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 29 R. Rajenra Prasad, S/o. Pochaiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 30 Ch. Madavi, W/o. B. Santosh, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 31 K. Issac Praveen Kumar, S/o. Franklin George, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 32 Ch. Gopal Rao, S/o. C. Hanumantha Rao, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 33 B. Suramouleshwar Rao, S/o. B. Narasaiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 34 D. Srinivas Yadav, S/o. D. Mallaiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 35 N. Srinivas, S/o.N. Ramulu, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 36 M> Srinivas Rao, S/o. Shankaraiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 37 A.N.S. Prasad, S/o. A. Veeraiah, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of CERTIORARI by calling for the order dated 22-12-2008 in O.A.No. 388 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and set aside the same, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.GANGI RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 37: Sri S. Lakshma Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 1295 of 2009 & 6603 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per Sri Ghulam Mohammed,J) Even though the matters are listed ‘for admission’, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing. Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions being the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Aggrieved by the order 22.12.2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No.388 of 2008, the Department filed Writ Petition No. 6603 of 2009; whereas, certain persons, who are not parties to the said O.A., with the leave of the Court, filed Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2009. The facts in brief are that the department issued notification on 15.2.2008 proposing to fill up 124 vacancies of Head Travelling Ticket Examiners in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000. Pursuant to which, 187 Senior Travelling Ticket Examiners have appeared for the written examinations held on 8.3.2008 and 16.3.2008 and also in the supplementary examination held on 30.3.2008. The result of the written tests were published on 8.5.2008 and in the written examinations, about 148 candidates were declared to have been qualified. Assailing the same, certain unsuccessful candidates have lodged a complaint before the Divisional Railway manager (P), Secunderabad Division, S.C. Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, II Floor, Secunderabad alleging mass copying during the written examinations. Thereafter, a Committee was appointed to enquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the said complaint. The Committee, after conducting necessary enquiry into the matter, submitted its report stating that certain irregularities were noticed in the written examinations. Basing on the report of the said Committee, through order dated 10.6.2008, the Divisional Railway Manger cancelled the written examinations. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondents in Writ Petition No. 6603 of 2008 filed O.A. No. 388 of 2008 before the Tribunal. Before the tribunal, the department has filed counter stating that the written examination was held in two batches, i.e., in respect of S. Nos. 1 to 100, the written examination was held on 8.3.2008 and in respect of S.Nos. 101 to 198, the examination was held on 16.3.2008. Further, supplementary examination was held on 30.3.2008. The Tribunal, through the impugned order dated 22.12.2008, has set aside the cancellation order dated 10.6.2008 while reserving liberty to the department to proceed against the persons who indulged in malpractices after segregating them and further to proceed with the empanelment in respect of such of those candidates who have not indulged in such malpractices. Assailing the said order, these two writ petitions are filed by the department as well as some unsuccessful applicants. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2009, would contend that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioners, the department has appointed a committee to enquire into the matter and the Committee having gone through the answer scripts of the candidates who appeared for the written examinations and the seating arrangements, has submitted its report holding that malpractices have occurred in the written examinations and basing on the report of the said committee, the department has cancelled the entire selection process. He would further contend that the department has taken a decision to cancel the selection process basing on the findings of the departmental committee in which case it is impermissible for the Tribunal to review the decision taken by the department. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. TARUN K.SINGH([1]), wherein the Apex Court in para-4 of the said judgment observed thus: 4. The question for consideration is whether the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court was justified in interfering with an order of cancellation passed by the competent authority and direct that the process of selection should be completed. Needless to mention that subsequent to the order of cancellation, in view of the allegation of malpractice, the departmental authorities has held an enquiry into the matter and the result of that enquiry was revealed gross irregularities and illegalities as referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. Consequently the process of selection which stands vitiated by adoption of large scale malpractice to a public office, cannot be permitted to be sustained by Court of Law. That apart, an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a Mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. In the case in hand, much before the so- called list of selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of the complaint received from so many quarters. In view of the subsequent findings of the enquiry committee which has gone into the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court was wholly in error in issuing the direction in question and, therefore, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was fully justified in interfering with the said order of learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court committed error in following the judgment of learned single judge of Allahabad High Court. The judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court is set aside and the judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is upheld. In the circumstances, we allow the Union's appeals and dismiss the appeals filed on behalf of the individual candidates. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Any other question of law remains open. He also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Joseph P. Cherian([2]). Secondly, he would contend that unless the decision of the department is mala fide, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the decision taken by the department and review the same. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India vs. Akchhay Kumar Singh and others ([3]). In para-20 of the said judgment, the Allahabad High Court observed thus: 20. In a matter like the one on hand, the competent authority, in our opinion, does not decide a lis between the complainant on one hand and candidates seeking appointment on the other so as to be obliged to hold an enquiry in consonance with the rules of natural justice. Its decision is not to be judged from judicial or even quasi-judicial standards and since exercise of power to scrap recruitment is not regulated by objectively determinable factors, even "reasonable suspicion" as to the process of recruitment being vitiated by malpractices or corrupt means would suffice. Surrounding circumstances, e.g.. the necessity to scrap the recruitment for preservation of public faith in the recruitment process will also do. The competent authority, in our opinion, is not required to hold a formal enquiry in tune with the principles of natural justice and ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaints as to malpractice in the recruitment process as condition precedent to cancelling the recruitment process. All that is expected of the competent authority in such a situation is that it would act in 'good faith' and take a bona fide decision whether to scrap or not to scrap the recruitment. The decision should not be influenced by any extraneous consideration and whenever its decision is found to have been influenced by 'bad faith' or extraneous consideration, the Court will intervene, for no power is absolute and rather all powers are conferred subject to an implied duty that they be exercised reasonably and in good faith. An authority failing to comply with this obligation. It may be observed, acts unlawfully or ultra vires. The judicial scrutiny by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on a matter like the one on hand, is to be made on the anvil of 'good faith', bona fide and absence of mala fide. The impugned decision to scrap the recruitment in our opinion, does not appear to be tainted with mala fide, 'bad faith' or 'extraneous consideration'. Notings on the original file produced before us would show that the matter was examined and decision to scrap the recruitment was taken after due deliberation. Such decision, in our opinion is not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there was no material to substantiate the allegations of malpractice. The complaints in themselves constituted valid material on consideration of which the recruitment could lawfully be scrapped. The Director General, R.P.F. in our opinion, was right in observing that anybody who pays money to get a Job would first realise his original investment. Members of the R.P.F. who are supposed to guard the railway and public property worth crores of rupees should not be allowed to enter into the force by illegal and corrupt means. The view taken by the learned single Judge that the decision to scrap the recruitment was arbitrary cannot be sustained. The report dated 3.12.1998 submitted by the Chief Security Commissioner. R.P.F., Eastern Railway, is no doubt a post- decisional report but since it supports the complaints to a large extent, the decision to scrap the recruitment as taken by the Director General, R.P.F., cannot be said to be vitiated by arbitrariness particularly when the exercise of discretion in this regard is not regulated by objectively determinable factors/norms. Learned single Judge, in our opinion, was not right in judging the impugned decision on the touchstone of the standards meant for judging judicial or quasi-judicial decision affecting vested rights of individuals. He, would, therefore, contend that since in the instant case, there are no malafides alleged against the decision making process of the department in cancelling the examinations, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order dated 10.8.2008. Sri Gangirami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the department would contend that pursuant to the complaint made by certain candidates in respect of the written examinations which were held on 8.3.2008, 16.3.2008 and 5.4.2008, a committee was appointed by the department to investigate into the matter as to whether any mass copying has been resorted to by the candidates and the committee after due enquiry, has submitted its report holding that malpractices have occurred in the said examinations and basing on the report of the said Committee, the administrative authority has taken a decision to cancel the selection process and directed to re-notify the vacancies. He would further contend that since the said decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority on due consideration of the report submitted by the enquiry committee, the decision made by the administrative authority does not suffer from any infirmity and the Tribunal cannot interfere with the said decision. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. On the other hand, Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-applicants in Writ Petition No. 6603 of 2009 would contend that there was no complaint in respect of the examinations held on 8.3.2008 and that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2008 having kept quiet for more than two months, have filed the aforesaid the complaint with a view to interdict the selection process. Further they made the complaint only against two persons, namely, Sri J. Ravi and Sri V.R. Anil Kumar and when the complaint is specifically made against only two persons, the department was not justified in setting aside the entire selection process. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & others ([4]). “On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions - which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court, there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written examination - either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions in loudspeaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed situation by re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment. There was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going further than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the Competent Authority completely misdirected