WP(C) 3683/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Amitava Roy, J The petitioners being aggrieved by the rejection of their challenge to the cance llation of the process for selection/promotion to the post of Tech/III/TM by D epartmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter for short referred to as the Ex amination) initiated by the notification dated 14.06.2010, are before this Court seeking to overturn the judgment and order dated 29.04.2011 rendered by the Cen tral Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench Guwahati (for short referred to as t he Tribunal) in O.A. No.17/2011. We have heard Mr. J.C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. S arkar, learned counsel for the Railways for the respondents. The pleaded case of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal is that as Khala si/Track Machine Cadre with the respondent-Railways at the relevant point of tim e, they were eligible to participate in the selection process the above promotio n and that therefore they duly offered their candidature therefor. They appeare d in the written test held on 12.09.2010. In the select list dated 09.12.2010 al l of them were empanelled. It was at that stage that by a notification/memorand um dated 18.01.2011, a fresh selection for the same post of Tech/III/T.M. was no tified. On enquiries being made, the petitioners came to learn that the earlier select list had been cancelled by memorandum dated 21.12.2010 purportedly due t o some procedural irregularities and/or defects detected in the earlier process. Situated thus, the petitioners approached the learned Tribunal, inter alia with the contention that the cancellation of the earlier selection process was illeg al and on extraneous considerations to favour certain ineligible and unsuccessfu l candidates. The respondent-Railways, in their written statement reiterated their stand that the cancellation was warranted in view of the vitiation of the selection process , more particularly, in view of the question No.5 (a) in the question paper requ iring the candidates to disclose their names and particulars. According to the Railways, the said question compromised with the indispensable requirement of co nfidentiality in the process and thus in administrative exigency and in public i nterest the earlier selection process was recalled. The learned Tribunal on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced on their behalf by the impugned judgment and order negated th e challenge of the petitioners. Mr. Gogoi has emphatically argued that in the absence of any bar in any of the Rules governing the selection process to frame a question identical to question No.5(a), the cancellation of the earlier selection process is visibly illegal an d non est in law. The learned counsel contended that the cancellation is also u nauthorized as it was effected by a authority not contemplated by paragraph 219 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I (for short hereinafter refe rred to as the Manual). Mr. Gogoi pleaded that the cancellation of the selectio n process is permitted by impertinent considerations to favour unsuccessful and ineligible candidates. In any view of the matter the cancellation having been d one without affording any opportunity to the successful candidates included in t he select list, it is violative of the principles of natural justice, he urged. Mr. Sarkar replied contending that not only the cancellation of the selection pr ocess having regard to the nature of question No.5 (a) was warranted in public i nterest and the sanctity of the process undertaken, the petitioners having faile d to prove that the same was to further any oblique motive, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. We have extended our anxious consideration to the pleadings on record and the ar guments advanced. There is no wrangle at the Bar about the incorporation of que stion No.5(a) in the question paper for the written test in the earlier selectio n process, whereby the candidates were required to give their names and addresse s in Hindi. That a complaint was received from some candidates to the effect tha t such a question and the answers thereto had the potential of breeding nepotism and favouritism in the process is also a matter of record. The complaint was s crutinised by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Railways in course of which it transpired that most of the candidates had answered question No.5(a) disclosing their names and particulars. That thereby the confidentiality of the process had been undermined is thus an unmistakable conclusion. The petitioners understanda bly had not been able to produce any overwhelming and tangible material to estab lish their allegation that the respondents by cancelling the earlier selection p rocess were out to favour a chosen few, who were either ineligible or had been u nsuccessful in the earlier selection process. That question No.5(a) to repeat, has the potential of compromising with the confidentiality in the process for ap pointment to a public post cannot be doubted. In this premise, the decision of the respondent-Railways to cancel the earlier selection process cannot be fault ed with. The plea on behalf of the petitioners that such a cancellation was impermissible in absence of any bar in the relevant Rules to frame such a question is unconvi ncing. The absence of any such provision per se does not in our opinion permit any step of this kind to jeopardise the confidentiality of a public participator y process and resultantly the sanctity thereof. Paragraph 219 of the IREM, Volume-I in view of its formidable significance vis-à -vis the issues hereinabove needs to be extracted: After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of the candidate selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after fo rmation or announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authorit y it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other de fects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this shou ld be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the o ne who approved the panel. It would be apparent from the above text that cancellation of a panel or a selec t list after its publication is not barred thereunder in case of procedural irre gularities or other defects. The only precondition is the satisfaction of the authority concerned that such a cancellation or amendment is warranted in such a n eventuality and that the approval of the authority next higher than the one wh o had approved the panel is obtained. In the present case the panel had been app roved by the Chief Engineer, N.F. Railways and the approval to cancel the same h ad been accorded by the Principal Chief Engineer who apparently, is higher in ra nk than the former. The satisfaction that question No.5(a) and answers thereto by most of the candidates had endangered the confidentiality of the process j ustifying its cancellation is borne out by the records. From this point of vie w as well, the impugned cancellation is beyond assailment. The plea of violation of the principle of natural justice is to be mentioned onl y to be rejected. Not only, there is no requirement in the relevant rules to pr ovide a prior opportunity of hearing to the candidates whose name had appeared i n the select list cancelled, we are in the facts and circumstances of the case a nd having regard to the nature of the selection process even otherwise unable to lend our concurrence to this plea raised on behalf of the petitioners. The pub lic nature of the selection and the obvious reason for the cancellation of the e arlier selection process, in our opinion does not mandate a prior opportunity of having to the selected candidates as a precondition for cancellation of the ear lier selection process. In the above view of the matter and on a totality of the considerations narrated hereinabove, we are constrained to hold that the view recorded by the learned T ribunal needs no interference at this end. The petition lacks in merit and is d ismissed. No costs.