A.K.Kirty, J. - (1.) The appellants are Railway servants. Admittedly, a Selection Board was set up for selecting candidates for promotion to posts of Signal Inspectors in the Scale of Rs. 450-575. It is not disputed that the appellants were eligible persons for being considered for selection for the posts in question. The appellants along with a number of certain other Railway servants appeared at the examinations held by the Selection Board and also at personal interviews held by that Board. The selections for the posts took place between December 18, 1969, and December 7,1970. As a result of the selection proceedings, a panel of selected candidates dated 24.1.270/18-1-71 was published in the Railway gazette containing the names of the selected candidates. There is no dispute that the names of the appellants found place in that panel. Subsequently, the appellants were posted in officiating capacity to posts for which Selection was made by the Selection Board. The selection made by the Selection Board, under the relevant Railway rules was subject to approval by the Chief Signal and Tele Communication Engineer. There is no dispute either that the said authority approved the panel prepared by the Selection Board and that it was thereafter that the panel was published in the gazette. It appears that some complaints were made alleging that some irregularities had been committed by the Selection Board in preparing the panel of selected candidates. These complaints appear to have been made to the Railway Minister who in his turn referred the matter to the General Manager of the Railway concerned, namely, North Eastern Railway. The General manager called for a report from the Chief Signal, Tele Communication Engineer and cancelled the selection and the panel of the selected candidates. In pursuance of his order, a notification to that effect was issued on March 23,1971. This notification was challenged by the appellants by filling a petition in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition was opposed by the respondents. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Against his judgement and order, the instant special appeal has been filed.
(2.) The impugned notification dated March 23,1971 purports to have been issued or caused to be issued by the General manager in exercise of power conferred on him by the newly-added Clause (J) to Paragraph 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The first question for determination is what is the power of General Manager under the aforesaid provision. Paragraph 216 (J) reads as follows:- "After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of Selection Board, the names of the candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after the formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authority it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of authority next higher than the one that approved the panel." In the instant case, the parties are agreed that the next higher authority than the one which approved that panel is General Manager of the particular Railway. The aforesaid provision empowers the next higher authority to cancel or amend a panel approved by the competent authority. If it is discovered that there were procedural irregularities or other defects in the matter of selection of candidates by the Selection Board. Further, the panel can be cancelled or amended only if considered necessary. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellants as was done before the learned single Judge, that the General manager had no power to cancel or amend the panel prepared by the Selection Board and approved by the competent authority because there was neither any procedural irregularity nor was there any such defect in the matter of selection, as would entitle the General Manager to cancel or amend it. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no procedural irregularity. It has, however, been contended that there were defects which would come within the ambit of the expression 'other defect' under paragraph 216 (j). On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellants contended that other defects in the context would mean defects similar or analogous to procedural irregularities, that is to say, the argument was that in construing the expression 'other defects' the rule of Ejusden Generis should be applied. We not propose to express our final or concluded opinion on this controversy.
(3.) In our view, the expression 'other defects' even if give a wide connotation would not confer on the higher authority power to cancel or amend a panel merely because he was personally of the view that the papers set by the Selection Board or the standard of giving marks to the examinees on examination of the answer books or at viva voice tests were very lenient. One of the explanations given on behalf of the General Manager in the counter-affidavit is that the papers which were set were too lenient. Another reason given is that one Shri M.L. Kanaujia who appeared in the selection examination and tests actually received more marks but less marks were shown against his name. Assuming that this allegation is correct, it might reasonably furnish a ground for suitably amending the panel but such a mistake obviously could not be made a ground for cancellation of the entire panel. Another ground mentioned is that one Shri N.N. Sharma whose name was included in the panel was not found suitable by another Selection Board in another selection for a different post. To our mind, this was wholly irrelevant to the question whether the panel prepared in the instant case should be cancelled or amended. It has not been alleged that Shri N.N. Sharma had not duly qualified at the written examination and the viva voice test held by the Selection Board. Besides, if individually some thing was wrong in regard to selection of Shri N.N. Sharma, that might again possibly furnish a reasonable ground to suitably amend the panel but not for the cancellation of the panel as a whole. Even if the matter were to be examined in the light of explanation given on behalf of the General Manager, the impugned notification cannot be upheld because the General Manager, to our mind, acted upon considerations which were not relevant and which in any case had nothing to do with the present appellants or their selection. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that the expression 'other defects' was wide and comprehensive enough to empower the higher authority without any restriction to cancel the panel if the higher authority was satisfied that the panel for some reasons which appealed to him deserved to be cancelled or amended. We are not prepared to accept a proposition so widely stated because if such a proposition were to be accepted, the consequence might be to vest the higher authority under paragraph 216 (j) with an absolute, uncontrolled and unrestricted power to cancel or amend any panel even though prepared by the Board of Selection in due course and approved by the competent authority. The question, however, need not be discussed further.;