Vijay Kumar Dahiya & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

order No.20(5)/2002-A.III dated

18.05.2007 (Annexure-L4) had authorized/approved only 67 posts to be filled as Direct Recruitment vacancies/Essential vacancies. Out of this 14 posts were not advertised. Against remaining 53 (67-14) posts, the Press advertised/notified 179 posts. The overall excess of posts advertised is 136 (179-53). ** The fourteen include Electrician-1, Steno-1, LDC-3 and Copyholder-5, Tech Officer-5, Wireman-2.

(b) Approval of competent authority for advertisement of 136 excess vacancies as compared to 67 approved, in relaxation ban orders on direct recruitment has not been made available by the GIP Press, Aligarh/Directorate of Printing during the course of investigation.

(c) In total the Recruitment Board recommended candidates for various post as indicated at Annexure Q-3. Out of that appointments were made in respect of only 58 (Statement-A above).

(d) There were 67 approved posts in 12 categories to be filled up by direct recruitment. Out of these, recruitments were not made against 50 posts belonging to the categories of Darkroom Assistant, Electrician, Labourer, Assistant Retoucher, Assistant Artist Retoucher, Cameramen, Stenographer, LD, Copyholder, Technical Officer, and Wireman. 49 recruitments were made against against the remaining 17 approved posts in Assistant Binder category. In addition 9 recruitments were made in the categories of Carpenter, Assistant Plate Maker, M/C Attendant Officer and M/C Assistant Offset even though no posts existed in these categories. As a result the total number of recruitment against unapproved posts was 41 (Assistant Binder-32, Carpenter-1, Assistant Plate Maker: 2, M/C Attendant Offset: 5, and M/C Assistant Offset: 1).

(e) Out of 133 candidates recommended for selection, seventy three persons (Annexure Q-3) were not allowed to join GIP Press at Aligarh (U.P. subsequent to suspension of Recruitment Process Page 36 on 03.04.2008 as per directive of Directorate of Printing. Two persons refused to accept offer/appointment at GIP, Press, Aligarh. Against the remaining advertised vacancies 46 (179-133), the Press did not appoint any person as no selection was made. The entire recruitment process was stayed by the Directorate of Printing on 3rd April 2008 on direction of the M/o of U.D., vide its letter dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure-A).

(f) Out of 133 candidates recommended for appointment (27***) recommendations were against approved posts and 106 against unapproved posts. ***Assistant Artist Retoucher-1, Labourer-9 & Assistant Binder-17 (as indicated in Annexure-A & C of letter dated 18.05.2007 – Annexure L-4) ************** ********************* "5.1 Specific instances of alleged irregularities: MANIPULATION IN THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES BY THE RECRUITMENT BOARD IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS GROUP D POSTS.

5.1.1 Reference number of Complaints in which allegation is made. Annexure C-3(ii), C-4, C-6 and C-9.

5.1.2 Specific instances of alleged irregularities-

i) On 5th March, 2008, to rectify some technical error in the list finalized on 27.02.2008 on the basis of interview conducted between 22.02.2008 to 26.02.2008, another list was prepared for Safaiwala, Peon, Chowkidar, Labourer etc. Lot of changes in the list were made and inspite of great resistance by all the outside members the list was again changed and signed y all members while previous list was torn away by the Manager. C-4

ii) The list of selected candidates finalized on 26.02.2008 by the Selection Committee on the basis of the interview conducted Page 37 between 20-25 February, 2008 was to be displayed on the notice board but it was not done. In the selection Committee meeting again convened on 05.03.2008, Manager stated that some names are to be changed in the list finalized on 26.02.2008 as per direction of the senior officers of Directorate of Printing. Thus, Manager cut some narries in the list and inserted another names in his own handwriting C-6 (iii)

(iii) In the Selection Committee meeting again convened on

05.03.2008, Manager on the pretext of rectifying some technical error in the list finalized on 26.02.2008, Manager cut some names in the list and inserted another names in their place in his own handwriting. C-9(ii)

(iv) When complainant SC Member of the Selection Committee opposed the above action, he was removed from the Selection Committee in violation of rules. One minority member was also removed from the Selection Committee. C-4

(v) When the above action of the Manager was opposed by the Selection Committee member viz., Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Dr. Naushad Äli Khan, they were removed from the Selection Committee by the Manager arbitrarily and in violation of rules. C-

(vi) The candidates selected in final list issued on 30.03.2008 have been shown selected by the Selection Committee including two new members viz., Sh. Lal Singh and Dr. Rahim Ahmed Khan whereas the fact is that these two members of the Selection Committee had not interviewed the candidates during 22.02.2008 to 26.02.2008.

(vii) It has been observed from the final selection list displayed on the Notice Board on 31.03.2008 that a lot of manipulation from the candidates from first phase of Group-D interview have been noticed. The minutes did not bear the signature of two members of the Old Selection Board. C-4

(viii) No codal procedure was followed for selection. No marks were given to any candidates on which the new Board could have taken right decision for selection. C-4 Page 38

(ix) The final list of the selected candidates issued on

30.03.2008 was not signed by Dr. Vishnu Swaroop and Dr. Naushad Ali Khan who were removed from the Selection Committee which conducted interview during 22-26.02.2008 which is not proper. C-6

(x) None of the applicant was selected on the basis of the interview conducted during 2nd spell for the post of Labourer. C-3(ii)

(xi) Except one applicant who is the son of Sh. Lal Singh, member of the Selection Committee, no other applicant was selected in the final selection list on the basis of the interview conducted on 28.03.2008 to 30.03.2008. C-9

5.1.3 (i) to (xi) Facts and their analysis As per office Circular dated 30.03.2008 and Minutes attached thereto (Annexure-D), the interviews for the posts of Labourer were held on 22nd, 23rd and 24th February, 2008 and 28th and 30th March 2008. It is on record that on 5th March, 2008, another meeting was convened with a view to rectifying the technical error, the details of which were not provided (Annexure-G). The formal proceedings of the Meetings of Recruitment Board held on February 22-24th 2008 have not been made available during investigation. As such the technical errors that were stated to be rectified in the meeting of 05.03.2008 are not on record. The final list of the selected candidates in respect of LABOURER post was declared on 30-03-2008 (Annexure-D). A total of 39 candidates were selected and 6 candidates as detailed in (Annexure-D, Page 3) were placed in the waiting list. This list of final selection of the candidates was signed by the following four officers, namely:-

(i) Shri B. Ghosh, Manager, Chairman

(ii) Shri A.K. Chowdhry Member Secretary (iii) Shri G.K. Sharma, Member (iv) Dr. Abduraheem. K. Member (Minority). Sh. Lal Singh, Member

(SC). As per the minutes of the meeting he has been shown as absent. As per the statement dated 22.10.2009 of Dr. Naushad Ali recorded during inquiry (Annexure-L) he attended the Page 39 proceedings of the Recruitment Board held on 22nd to 24th February, 2008 as a Minority Community Member. As per the above list the interviews for the post of LABOURER were held in two spells, i.e. on February 22, 23 and 24, 2008 and 28th and 30th March, 2008. To ascertain veracity of the allegations the main complainant Shri Vinod Kumar working as Assistant Binder (Token No.570), in the press was contacted. He informally handed over the unsigned original piece of paper (Annexure-C) in support of his allegation bearing handwritten remarks and disclosing the names of various officials of the Press and the Directorate of Printing who reportedly recommended the names for selection in the labourer category of post. The handwriting on this piece of paper is alleged to be of the then Manager of the Press (Shri B. Ghosh, since retired). No record of the proceedings with respect to this document has been kept by the Press. In this context the statement dated 24/20/2009 of Shri Vishnu Swaroop, Member SC of the Recruitment Board recorded – during enquiry is relevant which clearly indicated that the handwriting on this paper is of Shri B. Ghosh (Annexure-I). With a view to further verifying this aspect, hand written specimen have been obtained from the personal file of Shri Ghosh which are marked as Annexure-F. It has been observed that prima facie the handwriting on the above documents, i.e. Annexure C and F tallies with each other. The above facts reveal that the allegation of manipulation in preparation of the final list of the selected candidates is established. The following observations also strongly support the above conclusion:-

(a) The signatures of Dr. Swaroop, Member SC were not obtained in the final list prepared on 30-03-2008 (Annexure-D). He attended the meeting of the Recruitment Board as is evident from Annexure-C (unsigned) and other documents marked as Annexure-G. It is remarkable that the Members of the Page 40 Recruitment Board finalized the list of selected candidates without any evaluation or assessment sheets. This acquires more significance as the final list was prepared after the interviews conducted in the second spell in March 2008 whereas the candidates selected were interviewed in the first spell in February 2008. The members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates should be held responsible.

(b) None of the candidates appeared in the second spell of interviews during 28th to 30th March 2008 was selected by the Recruitment Board.

(c) The names written in hand by way of cutting/overwriting as a result of manipulation more or less find place in the final list. The names indicated in this list which have been circled and alleged to have recommended the names of the candidates include that of (i) A.K. Chowdary, - A.M.(A), Minto Road and member of the Recruitment Board, (ii) Sinha (A.K. Sinha, G.M.), (iii) RC (RC Gupta, D.S.), (iv) L R (L R Gupta, DD) – All officials of the Directorate in Delhi during the recruitment process. However, authenticity of this document is not confirmed as it contains no signatures.

(d) As per the letter dated 25.3.2010 no records of the attendance during the first spell of interviews/tests held on 22, 23 and 24 Feb, 2007 has been maintained in the press. ************** ********************* Documents relied upon: - Annexure-C, D & F

5.1.4 Findings:- The candidates appeared for interviews in respect of 'Labourers' category in two spells, first on 22, 23 and 24 February and second on 28th and 30th March, 2008. Neither a marking sheet nor signed recommendations by Members of the DPC which conducted the interviews from 22nd to 24th February 2008 were available. Subsequently, composition of the Committee was changed by replacing two Members which later conducted the interviews on Page 41 28th and 30th March, 2008. However, the final list of the selected candidates was prepared after the conclusion of the interviews in the second spell without a marking sheet or signed recommendations by the Committee which conducted the interviews in the first spell. It is not clear on what basis the Members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates have done so. The allegation of manipulation in the selection of candidates is, therefore, established on the basis of documentary evidence available on record. The Members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates should be held responsible."

(ii) So far as the petitioner Manjeet Sharma is concerned, the report of CVO in para 5.7.3(i) is as follows: "As per the advertisement in the Employment News dated the 10-16 November, 2007, the last date for submission of application for the post of Assistant Binder was 03.12.2008. As per the record of the Press one Shri Manjeet Sharma (Roll No.270) applied for the post on 21.11.2007 and the same was registered in the Press on

23.11.2007 as diary No.1884. On checking of the relevant papers of this candidate it is seen that the Provisional National Apprenticeship certificate issued by the Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi is dated 13.12.2007, i.e. issued after the last date of receipt of application form. In other words, the application was not complete in all respects but was accepted and treated as eligible one. There is also an indication on the front page of the application that he is "NOT QUALIFIED" which was subsequently marked as OK on 09.01.2008 and duly signed by the officials of the press on the front portion of the application of the form."

¶26The above extracts clearly reveal that of the 133 candidates recommended for appointment, 27 recommendations were against approved posts (i.e Assistant Artist Retoucher-1, Labourer-9 and Assistant Binder-17) and 106 were against unapproved posts. Other infirmities, or deficiencies which had the tendency to fatally undermine the recruitment process were Page 42 that the signatures of a member of the selection board were not found on the recommendations; manipulations such as cutting, overwriting, etc were found in the select list, scoring out certain names and substituting them with others. Selections were conducted piecemeal; in such circumstances, the signatures of the members of the old selection board were not found on the select lists; marks were not assigned, etc.

¶27The argument made by some of the selected candidates was that the infirmity in the selection process was confined to certain categories, such as Group D. A forceful plea was made that since there was a specific infirmity in respect of the time given for interviewing the candidates (which according to the CVO's report, pointed at sheer improbability if not downright impossibility, given the number of candidates interviewed during a limited time) was in respect of one Government Press and in relation to Group D posts, the absence of any mention in the report, as regards other categories, meant that the CAT erred in adopting a uniform approach and likewise, the respondents should have taken care to separate such other candidates. This court is of opinion that the defects in the selection process were so fundamental in nature that only one specific form-i.e interview time in respect of Group D candidates, in Mayapuri (and not other centers or in respect of other posts) would not have made a difference. Apart from that, the materials on record clearly showed more serious flaws: the total number of posts advertised was 91 as against the approval to fill 33 posts, otherwise than by direct recruitment. As many as 110 selections were made. There was no approval to fill 110 posts. Nor is the argument in respect of Group D candidates (who were interviewed and declared successful) that they were Page 43 interviewed in batches and made to perform practical duties to assess the suitability, by the Selection Panel, of any assistance. Likewise, as noticed in relation to the Aligarh and Nilokheri Presses (in view of the discussion previously in this judgment), the malaises were too fundamental to be disregarded.

¶28The argument that since the petitioners were appointed and had functioned uninterruptedly for over five years or so had completed the maximum period stipulated for probation, they were entitled to be retained in service, unless formal disciplinary charges served and regular inquiries held, is, in this court's opinion, insubstantial. Such a rule again is not inflexible; it may possibly apply where there is no fault in the performance of the candidate, selected and appointed as a result of an otherwise valid process of recruitment. It cannot be invoked in a case, like the present one, where the selection on the basis of which the names of the candidates were selected is tainted by irregularities which strike at the root of the process itself. It is also impossible for the Government to separate the tainted candidates from un-tainted ones in the present case. The expiry of the statutory period of probation cannot act as a rule validating an otherwise indefensible selection process which should result in complete cancellation. On this score, the CAT held as follows: "Under these circumstances, based on the above citations, we conclude that till an order of confirmation is issued by the respondents it will be presumed that the period of probation of the applicants was extended and that they continued to remain as probationers. The argument of the applicants_ counsel that they be considered as deemed confirmed is not sustainable." Page 44 Therefore, on this aspect, this Court does not find any infirmity with the findings of the CAT in the impugned order.

¶29The CAT, in its impugned order held that: "7.2 The second issue for our determination is whether the respondents have mechanically scrapped the selection process on the ground that the Hon'ble High Court had so ordered or whether they have actually examined the report of the CVO and come to the conclusion that scrapping of the selection was necessary. In this regard we have seen the original files of the respondents. We find that the report of the CVO has been examined in great details by the respondents as is evident from their notes starting from page-18 onwards in File No. C-13019/1/2011-Ptg. Before taking this decision they have also consulted the Ministry of Law who advised them that in the case of UOI Vs. Chakradhar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in a similar situation held that the nature and extent of irregularities and illegalities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further held that if the mischief noticed is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongly deprived of their selection then the only way out was to cancel the whole selection. The Ministry of Law further advised on the basis of the aforesaid citation that in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selectee. After consulting the Ministry of law the matter was further examined in the department and the file was seen by concerned officers of the department as well as by the Hon'ble Ministers. Based on the report of the CVO as well as the advice of the Ministry of Law obtained the respondents decided to scrap the selection. In our opinion, this decision has been taken after application of mind by the respondents and not mechanically on the ground that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had so ordered. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted on this account." Page 45 This Court is of the opinion that the infirmities and deficiencies found during the inquiry are fundamental in nature. The lack of authority to fill the number of posts that were ultimately filled; the manipulations in the selection process, the short time given for candidates to apply, the short time intimated for interview, the changes in the selection committees, lack of signatures on the select lists, etc point to deep rooted and fatal defects which rendered it beyond redemption.

¶30In W.P.(C) 3745/2014 (directed against order in O.A. No. 579/2012 and O.A. No. 1554/2012), the Petitioner is aggrieved because the CAT upheld his termination on the ground of lack of qualification. It is urged before this Court, that CAT did not appreciate the Petitioner's rejoinder in which he produced documents to prove that the certificate submitted by him was genuine. The Petitioner's services were terminated by the order dated

31.10.2012 on the ground that the educational qualification certificate furnished by him was found to be fake on verification.

¶31CAT relied on a DoP&T memorandum, O.M. No. 11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19.05.1983, which states that a government servant who has furnished false information or relies upon a false certificate to secure appointment should not be retained in service. The respondents contended that before terminating this petitioner's appointment proper inspection was conducted to verify his certificates. A letter was written on 10.02.2012 to Gurukul Vishwavidyala Vrindavan to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate. The Vishwavidyala Vrindavan replied on 07.03.2012, to say that the certificates appear to be fake. Thereafter, another letter was written on

12.09.2012 to this Institute in order to carry out physical verification and Page 46 two officials namely Sh. Ram Dayal, Deputy Manager along with Sh. Raj Kumar, Accountant were deputed. They found that no record was available in the Institute as regards issuance of this certificate. The Institute again by their letter dated 28.09.2012 stated in writing that the certificate was a fake one. After considering the rival contentions, CAT held as follows: "15. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that the applicant has not been able to adduce even iota of evidence to establish that his educational qualification certificate was genuine. On the other hand, we notice that the respondents have made every effort to verify the genuineness of this certificate. It was only after due diligence that they came to the conclusion that this certificate was false. They have, therefore, terminated the services of the applicants in accordance with the directions of DoP&T mentioned above. We do find that they have invoked the wrong rule, namely, 19(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for his termination. This rule reads as follows:- "Whether any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or…." Clearly this rule has no application in the instant case as there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been convicted in a criminal case. However, in our opinion, mere invoking wrong section or rule does not vitiate the termination, which is otherwise in order. As regards his contention that he was confirmed in service, we have already discussed this issue in earlier part of the judgment and rejected it."

¶32This Court is of opinion that no fault can be found with the order of CAT in respect of this case. The petitioner's plea that he has now annexed certain documents, is of no consequence. The appointing authority got the certificates shown to it by the petitioner, verified twice. The officials who Page 47 verified it, found that the document was not genuine. That the petitioner now alleges that he has documents to prove the genuineness of the certificate is of no consequence. When given the opportunity to do so, he did not avail it. For these reasons, the petition is unmerited.

¶33For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that the impugned orders of the CAT cannot be faulted. The writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) DECEMBER 24, 2014

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20.11.2014 Pronounced on: 24.12.2014 + W.P.(C) 1989/2014, C.M. NO.4155/2014 SH. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Sh. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal and Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh. C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI. + W.P.(C) 2001/2014, C.M. NO.4179/2014 SH. MANJEET SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Sh. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Kewal Singh Ahuja and Ms. Prarthana Sampath, Advocates, for petitioner nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 28 and 30 to 54. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh. C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI. + W.P.(C) 2013/2014, C.M. NO.4200/2014 GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal and Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocates. Page 2 versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC along with Sh. C.M. Manaktala, Advocates, for UOI. Sh. S.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Sh. P.S. Singh and Sh. Robin George, for intervener on behalf of 87 employees of Mayapuri. + W.P.(C) 3410/2014, C.M. NO.7023/2014 DHARAM VIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Sh. S.S. Rai, Sh. Rohan Gupta and Ms. Shalini Aggarwal, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 3745/2014 YOGESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. Anil. K. Sharma, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Saqib, Advocate, for Resp. No.1. + W.P.(C) 4952/2014, C.M. NOS. 9915-9917/2014 SH. PRAKASH PANT ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate. Page 3 versus THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS...... Respondents Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Ms. Nishtha Sikroria, Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The Petitioners challenge the orders of the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09-03-2014 in OA Nos.1909/2012, 1554/2012, 1848/2012, 2272/2012, 579/2013 and order dated 23-05-2014 in OA No.1621/2013. Their applications questioning the orders of the respondent-Union of India represented through the Government of India Press (hereafter called "UOI") were dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India Press advertised vacancies in various posts - (Group B, Group C and Group D). These included the posts of Assistant Binders, Carpenters, Assistant Plate Maker, Machine Attendant Offset; Machine Assistant, besides Group D (Laborers) posts. The vacancies were advertised on different dates, in relation to availability of vacancies in the different centers (Govt. Press Maya Puri, Nilokheri, Aligarh and Mainpuri). These advertisements were issued - as noticed earlier, on different dates. After screening the responses, the recruitment process was undertaken. In the case of Group C posts, the Page 4 selection process included trade tests besides interview; in the case of Group D posts, it included interviews. Different selection committees were constituted by the Central Government in respect of the different units/Presses. In the case of individual Presses too, depending upon the number of eligible applicants who had to be examined or considered, two or more selection panels were constituted. All those whose names figured in the select list were informed about their selection and were asked to complete formalities such as medical test, police verification, etc. On the basis of their merit in the select list, some applicants were issued appointment letters and allowed to join. A complaint was received by the Central Government, thereafter, alleging large scale irregularities in the recruitment process. On 03.04.2008, decision was taken at the Ministry level to