C.G.M.,Cal.Tel.Dist.,B.S.N.L.& Ors vs Surendra Nath Pandey & Ors

3. The respondents are employees of the appellants, i.e., Department of Telecommunication within the Department of Post & Telegraph, Government of India, now renamed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. They appeared in an examination for being promoted to Junior Accounts Officers. Junior Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1977 regulate recruitment and conditions of service for this post. The rules provided for a two stage departmental examination for appointment to this post.

4. The appellants conducted the aforementioned departmental examination on 20th February, 1999, 21st February, 1999 & 22nd February, 1999 for appointing Junior Accounts Officers in the Department 2 of Telecommunication under the Ministry of Communication. The respondents appeared in the said examination; however, when the result consisting of lists featuring names of both successful and unsuccessful candidates was displayed, their names did not appear in either of the lists.

6. The respondents' request for being intimated of the marks secured was not acceded to, nor did the authorities reply to the representation.

8. The Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones complying with the order of the tribunal disposed of the respondent's representation by means of a speaking order. It was stated therein, that the 4 respondent's candidature was cancelled on account of some irregular practices having been noticed on their part. It was further stated that on account of cancellation of candidature, it was not permissible to communicate the marks obtained by the respondents in the said examination contemplating disciplinary proceedings for adopting unfair means.

(emphasis supplied)

The Court can interfere with a decision, if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken such a decision. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the appellants can not be said to be suffering from any such irrationality or unreasonableness, which would have enabled the High Court to interfere with the decision.

(emphasis supplied)

23. In view of these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision taken by the appellants requiring the candidates, who appeared in the cancelled examination, to reappear in the subsequent examination, in order to qualify for regular promotion.

24. We also do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr.Mukherjee that all cases of unfair means have to be examined on the basis of Rule 18 of Part I of the rules.

25. We are also of the considered opinion that the Division Bench was not justified in holding that merely because the respondents had been given ad-hoc promotion, the previous alleged misconduct stands wiped out. The respondents were given equal opportunity to compete in the examination subsequent to the cancellation of their examination result. It is a matter of record that 42 candidates who were similarly placed took advantage of the order passed by the CAT on 26th July, 2000 and appeared in the subsequent examination.

They have been promoted in accordance with the rule to the next higher post. The respondents, however, chose not to appear in the examination. They cannot at this stage be permitted to complain that they have been treated unfairly.

26. In view of the above, we are of the opinion, that the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench impugned herein are not sustainable.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgments 27 of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are hereby set aside.

November 03, 2011.