KULDIP SINGH - (1.) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2.) THE Railway Recruitment Board, Patna held written examination followed by viva voce test for selection and recruitment to various posts of non-technical popular categories in the Eastern Railway. A panel of selected candidates was prepared and published. Meanwhile in an investigation, conducted on a complaint received by the railway authorities, it was found that unfair means were adopted by the candidates at centre No. 115 (Katihar). THE question for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) was whether in such a situation the railway authorities could cancel the selection and empanelment of the candidates from centre No. 115 and direct them to sit in the written examination again? If so could it be done without complying with the rules of natural justice? THE Tribunal answered the question in the negative and quashed the order of the railway authorities calling upon the candidates to sit in the written examination once over again. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the Tribunal. The Railway Recruitment Board, Patna invited applications for selection and recruitment to various posts of non-technical popular categories in the Eastern Railway. The selection was to be made as a result of written examination and a viva voce test. A large number of candidates including the respondents appeared in the written test from various centres in the city of Katihar. All the respondents, in the appeal herein, sat for the written examination at centre No. 115 called "Darshan Shah Mahavidyalaya", Katihar. It is not disputed that the respondents qualified in the written examination as well as in the viva voce test and their names were included in the panel of selected candidates which was published on 23/09/1988. Meanwhile a complaint dated September 1, 1988 was received by the railway authorities wherein it was alleged that large scale unfair means were adopted by the candidates such as leakage of question papers and mass copying at centre No. 115, Katihar. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants has placed on record the copies of the complaint, Inquiry Reports and noting part of the file (confidential) for our consideration. Secretary (Vigilance), Railway Board directed an inquiry into the complaint through General Manager (Vigilance). Preliminary investigation report was sent to the Secretary on 30/11/1988. Finally the Deputy Director (Vigilance) held detailed inquiry into the allegations and sent his report dated 19/07/1989 to the Executive Director(Vigilance). The report was examined in detail at various levels in the Railway Ministry and finally a decision was taken that 35 candidates of centre No. 115 be subjected to a fresh written examination. It was further decided that marks already obtained by them in the viva voce examination would be taken into account. It was further directed to complete the fresh examination within a period of one and half month. The file shows that the decision was finally approved by the Minister in-charge.
(3.) AS mentioned above, the decision of the appellants directing the respondents to appear in a written examination once again was challenged by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 20/12/1991 set aside the order of the appellants and directed the appellants to make the appointments on the basis of the panel which was published on 23/09/1988. While issuing notice in the special leave petition this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order, directing the respondents to sit in the written examination again, on the short ground that a panel of selected candidates having been prepared and published the same could not be cancelled without assigning any reason and without affording an opportunity to the empanelled candidates. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal fell into patent error in interfering with the order of the appellants.;