K.KANNAN J. - (1.) JBT Treachers' selection: the genesis of the controversy 1. This batch of writ petitions concerns the selection process of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers, pursuant to a selection notification issued on 15.111.1999 in Daily Newspaper Tribune by the Director, Primary Education and for posting to be done for 3206 candidates at the Primary Education level within different Districts of State of Haryana. That notification had set out details of various categories of persons who would be recruited and the basic qualification setting out the eligibility criteria for making applications and for consideration for selection. As a preliminary step after appraisal of the eligibility, roll numbers had been assigned to the candidates and the relative grading had been done by taking into reckoning the academic qualifications at 70% with weightage for higher qualifications and experience respectively at 5% each, aggregating to an extent of 80% and 20% marks to be assigned for performance in interview. Some persons, who had higher qualification with graduate degree with B.Ed had filed C.W.P. No.16410 of 1999 for permitting their applications to be considered and this Court had passed an order allowing them to be interviewed. Total number of persons so interviewed were 7707 candidates. While manipulations were not possible as regards the academic qualification and the grading done on the basis of higher qualifications, the area of controversy was of the appraisal done at the interview. The results were published along with criteria for selection in several newspapers including the Indian Express on 07.10.2000. On the basis of the results, appointment orders had also been issued. II. The CBI investigation reveals the modus operandi for preparation of the 'supreme court list' and the 'directorate list'
(2.) THE validity of the selection process and the publication of results were brought under cloud when some of the candidates, who had not been selected, had filed writ petitions alleging grave malpractices. As if to secure credence to their versions, a case had been registered against one Sanjiv Kumar, IAS who held the additional charge as Director of Primary Education at the relevant time when the results were published and against whom a FIR No.312 had been registered on 04.06.2002 and still later yet another FIR No.293 had ben registered on 2003 at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. The latter was on the basis of a complaint of one Paley Ram, Deputy S.P., Haryana Vigilance Bureau for alleged offences under Section 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 471A, 120 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The case took another twist when Sanjiv Kumar himself had approached the Supreme Court by means of a Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.93 of 2003 contending that when he was posted as Director, Primary Education Haryana, he had been pressurised by the then Chief Minister Sh. Om Parkash Chautala to replace the list of candidates which had been prepared and was due for publication with an alternative list containing a set of 15 award lists signed by the members of the selection committee which Sanjiv Kumar claimed as the fake list. When he refused to comply with the pressure for changing the list, a false case had been allegedly filed against him. During the course of investigation, Sanjiv Kumar handed over one set of interview list of District Kaithal and part list of District Kurukshetra to the CBI. The Rs.15 award list' filed by Sanjiv Kumar at the Supreme Court and one interview list at District Kaithal and part list at District Kurukshetra constituted what could conveniently be called as Supreme Court list. Sanjiv Kumar claimed that the actual list which had been prepared and which was ultimately published for announcing the results was actually approved by the Directorate Primary Education which could conveniently be called as the Directorate list. The Supreme Court found that there was some prima facie material of malpractices when some of the other candidates had also joined the fray and since high ranking political persons were said to have been involved, the Supreme Court directed that case would require to be entrusted with the CBI for further investigation. The further investigation by the CBI had yet another twist to the enquiry when it found that the Directorate list as propounded by Sanjiv Kumar was itself not genuine and that was also a fabricated list having been tampered with the original list which was held in safe custody by the previous incumbent in office Smt. Rajni Sekri Sibal . The investigation found that the list which had been prepared and kept in a sealed cloth cover had been substituted by Sanjiv Kumar himself on 16.09.2000. The person, who claimed to be a whistle blower at whose instance the Supreme Court had ordered an investigation through CBI turned to be a villain of piece himself and he was arrayed as 3rd accused in the case that was prosecuted before the Special Judge -II (Prevention of Corruption Act) CBI, Rohini, Delhi. The report of the CBI revealed a large scale conspiracy amongst higher ranking officials working in the State of Haryana along with the Chief Minister and his son. The Chief Minister and his son were accused Nos.4 and 5 and Vidya Dhar another IAS Officer who was said to have been responsible for alteration of list had been arrayed as 1st accused. The case proceeded for a few years and the judgment yielded to finding of guilt through judgment delivered on 16.01.2013. III. The extent of reliance on the judgment of the criminal court ­ limited to vindication of complaint of manipulation of marks at the interview 3. In the course of trial leading to its judgment, the Criminal Court has collected a large volume of documentary and oral evidence. Sanjiv Kumar examined himself as a witness in defence and subjected himself to cross examination. The Criminal Court entered a finding that Sanjiv Kumar was not just a whistle blower but he was a comrade in crime himself. A whistle blower truly, he was, in that without him going to the Supreme Court, there would not have been a direction to CBI for investigation and revelation of all the materials of how the lists came to be manipulated at various times and particularly the list that was published was itself a fabricated list on the basis of which appointments had been given. He was a comrade in crime to the extent that the list which he claimed to be false namely the Supreme Court list was the genuine list but he had fabricated a new list by tampering with the list which was prepared and which had been kept in the custody of the previous incumbent. The Court found that his version that he had opened the original list on 07.10.2000 from the almirah was not true and contradicted his own version that the desealing of the first list was done on 16.09.2000. Ms. Rajni Sekri Sibbal had been examined as a witness whose version was relevant to the effect that she had been appointed as Director, Primary Education and she had sent a note to the Ministry of Education on 20.2000 for preparation of list and for publication to be passed on to the Chief Minister. There seemed to be some misgiving in the finalization of the list when she was ordered to be transferred and Sanjiv Kumar, who was a State Project Director for Haryana Prathmik Shikshak Pariyojna Parishad was appointed to hold additional charge as Director of Primary Education since 11.07.2000 in the place of Smt. Rajni Sekri Sibbal. The real circumstances about when the list was actually changed and how the conspiracy was hatched to add some marks to some candidates and to reduce marks to some other candidates to secure list that was ultimately favoured and gave birth to a Directorate list, have been subject of adjudication before the Criminal Court. The decision of the Special Judge appears to have been brought under challenge before the High Court at Delhi and the case is pending.
(3.) I have made skeletal reference to the judgment of the Criminal Court only for the purpose of showing that the Court was principally concerned with whether there had been alteration in the list made and whether there was a conspiracy amongst all the accused persons, who committed the offences for which they were charged with. Since the adjudication has still not become final, I have referred to the judgment only for taking note of some uncontroverted fact that the list which was prepared and went for publication was not the genuine list. It must be remembered that no attempt was made at the time of trial, except by the 3rd accused Sanjeev Kumar that the list on the basis of which results were published was the genuine list and all the persons that had been selected were the meritorious candidates selected after proper appraisal. The area of dispute which is still at large is whether there was a conspiracy involving all the accused persons and whether Sanjiv Kumar at whose instance the prosecution before the Special Court went against all the 64 accused had really brought out truthful contentions before the Supreme Court. After the Criminal Court judgment had been rendered, I had called upon the State Government to indicate its own stand on how it proposed to act on the CBI report and had directed an affidavit to be filed by an officer on the proposed action to be taken not below the rank of Assistant Secretary. In some of the writ petitions, the selected candidates had been impleaded as parties and I had also directed the written statement of all the selected candidates to be brought on record. IV. The grounds of challenge and defences;