Subeer Sarkar v. Airports Authority of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judsment reserved on Ausust 28, 2015 Judgment delivered on January 25, 2016 : + W.P.(C^ 4597/2014. CM Nds. 9152/2014 & 14388/2014 I ABHAY SHARMA & ORS. Petitioner Tlirough: Mr.,RahulSharma,Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Adv. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Respondent Through: Mr. SanjayJain, ASG with ^ Mr. DigvijayRai andMr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. + W.P.(C) 4279/2015. CM Nos.7761/2015 NIKfflLMAHESHWARI&ORS. Petitioner Through: Mr. D.C. Pandey, Adv. with Mr. U.P. Singh, Adv. versus , AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. + W.P.(C) 6129/2015. CM No.11142/2015 SUBEER SARKAR Petitioner Through: Mr. D.C. Pandey, Adv. with Mr. U.P. Singh, Adv. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent yi Through: Mr. SanjayJain,ASG with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. + W.P.rC^ 8098/2015. CM Nos.16766/2015 PRATEEK SINGH & ANR .... Petitioner Through: Mr.ManojV. George,Adv. with Mr. Siju Thomas & Mr. Rohit Adlakha, Adv. versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Respondent Through: Mr. SanjayJain,ASG with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. Vc/ Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. + W.P.(a 8110/2015, CM Nos.16788/2015 MEENU & ORS Petitioner Through: Mr.Manoj V. George, Adv. with Mr. Siju Thomas & Mr. Rohit Adlakha, Adv. versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO u V.KAMESWARRAO. J. For orders see, W.P.(C) 2204/2014. (V.KAMES\V3SRAO) JUDGE JANUARY 25,2016 * IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT!^fEiW:i]D)ELIHI: . • Judeinentreserved on Au2nst 28. 2 Judsment delivered 6n2kmiidrv\25. ' WJ"(C),2204/2014.CM Nflis.85S4/20li4-i. + MOHIT PANWAR & ORS. i i ..... Petiti( •Through: Ms.JyotiSingh,Sr.Adv.f i'th Ms.TinuBaj^a,iMr., • . Amandeep;J[oshi&Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advs, versus ' ' ' ;AIRPORTSAUTHORITYOF INDIA , |......Respondent Through: Mr. SaiyayJain,ASG wi " • Mr. Digvij'^yRa|andi^- DhirajKumarjA^^vs. j ' .1+ WJo(C) 4597/2014..CM Nos. 9152/2014i& li43!«J?/2d'li4 :ABHAYSHARMA&ORS. ' ;XT55iI5^er Through: Mr. RahuliSharma,Adv. j-w • Ms. jyotiibuttSharms,Xd- • versus jAIRPORTSAUTHORITY-OF imiA . • ' J.,_ Through: Mr. SaryayJam,iASG^ ,Mr. DigvijiayRai and A/Ir, - • DhirajKumar',Advs. ! ' ; ' • 1 •' W.P.(C) 4279/2015"CM Nos"7761/2015!:-i. i :NIKHILMAHESPIWARI&ORS. ' ......Petitioner Through: Mr. D.C. Ifandey,Adv. with Mr. U.P. I^ingh,Adv.| versus i ^ | ! •' • . . I I ;AIRPORTSAUTHORITYOF INDIA : .j... Resp^nde • Through: Mr. SaryayiJaiin,ASg|wit] ; Mr. DigvijayRai andiMrj. ' Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. i; i i' •! i!-' W.P.(C) No. 2204-20]4 (Sl connected not;;.-rs Page I\ of 96 I i ' n ! r-iir'- t -itii ! :• f 6129/2015.CM No,l:1142/2il)lh RUBBERSARKAR , — TpIpetitidneF i Through: Mr. D.C. Pandey,AdvJ wit i ^ , -Mr.'U.P.Sirigli,Adv. | | versus : i ^ ^ " 1 .i AliRPORTSAUTHORITYOF INDIA / : RespoUnt : Through: Mr. Sanja^jJain,ASGIviih' .: • ; Mr. DigvijayRaijandlllr' : • Dhir^ Kumar,!A(kvs. ' ' ! . W.P.fC) 8098/2015. CM Nos, PRATEEK SINGH & ANR ' ' Petitioiier| • .Through: Mr.VIanpj¥. George,Ady, with.Mr. Sij|jiThomasIfe Mr. ! RohitAdlakjiaiAdv. !. versus M ^ . : • ! ' tURPORTAUTHORITYOF INDIA ^RespoldU: ; . . Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with ; Mr. DigvijayRai^andMr:' ; . ' . ' Dhir^ Kurii^,Advs. i • • I t"" . W;F-(C) gll0/2015" CM Nos"167Ka/10iK-! MEENU&ORS • ;~~~";-:...::Petitione Tlijough: Mr.Manoj George,Adv withMr. Sijju Thomas &I'/r. , ' RohitAdlai^id,Adv.•I versus • ' I AIRPORTAUTHORITYOF INDIA . ' • ::Respo Through: Mr. SanjayJaiii,ASG .Mr. DigvijayRai|and Mr.' DhirajKumar,:Ach/s. ' ndfeijit witlh HCbN'BLEMR" JUSTICEVJCAI^/IESWARRAiO' VjCAMESWARlRAO.X ^LJ^Q26/2015 atetayit) IV.P./CJNo. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 2 oj 96 k ]•: •! • i 1; ' -;"i t. • •' •]•••! . ; • •; r'vj.- J -•\ 1; 1 •. • • 1I f j-in' f " ' i , I This IS an applicationfiledby the respondentto take on i-e(;ordtlie| additionaldocuments. i ; In view^ ^the reasons stated in the application,.t allowed. The additionalaffidavitis takenon recdrdiApplication disposed of. . . ; he: sari r le.isi ISi:- TO,(C)Nos"2204/2014;bill0/2015 1'. As the reliefs in all the writ petitions arejidentical. Similaifacts,the same are.beingdecided.bythis cotamonorder.

¶2The writ petitionNo.2204/2014MohitPanwar&Ors vs^ ; • ^ r Authorityof India is being consideredas alead ;case, evert tljoug^ .almostt Ai facts of each writ petitionv/ould be noted separately,:the kaikd respondentwould be seen/consideredfrom,the pleadings file|d petition. - . I o in : i >; • r • r: tliei i tlie lleh i toj-r i' I vehise ?ed:;tM

3.- The nine, petitioners in this writ petition havfe cha Notificationdated March 21, 2014, wherebyit wasaecided entireselectionprocessafreshfor the postspublishedvide at No.02/2012datedMarch 01, 2012 and seeking,a-flirtherdirectib [• r respondentto issueappointmentlettersto the petitionerswho!wer I •' suitable and selected provisionallyfor the post of Junior Ejlec • I • • " • • • - : ' ^•y-P-(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters • d ' , Page 3 of96 edo tti#: •: Li nehti to itive. •-i-'l-. •; ' (Engmeering-Civil)andJuniorExecutive(Engineering-felectlicir

¶4It is the case of the petitioners that tile Iresponcent ; .1 ^plicationsfrom eligiblecandidatesfor;fillingupMiQpostsIntbi jumor Executive . (Engineering-Civil) andi Junior (Ejigineering-Electrical)in the Aiiports Authority of iln&i i j I • , . ; i ' i . I ' notification/advertisementNo.02/2012 dated Matcli dl, 2012i. A1 petitionersappearedfor the Avrittenexaminationoil A.ugust2^6, i2012-arid qualified it successfiilly.Pursuantthereto, the petitionersa i I 'i the interviewin the monthofDecember,.20,12.Thh responde E3i • ' • ' I •I • i • ih -a ;ec ei > •, X r ; i ' li 1 ! I I • vide : PPp j it pi ^li !., 1'.ii' for| shed the final resultin the monthofJanuary,2013, xvhereinfit was s • I { the petitioners are provisionally selected for ithe 'postJ (]f J iExecutive (Engineering-Civil)and Junior Executive (Enginee Electrical)and theirofferletterswill be issuedshortly..Jt is dlsd bfthe petitionersthat the respondentissued offer:of appoin tedthat, he imor;' ; • case! meiit to the candidateswho appliedfor the postof JuniorExecutive(Fire Servi In .the month of April/May, 2013, to their sliock land surprise ies'pondent published a notice on its website statin administrativereasons the jecmitmentrelated to the,posts a,|d vide advertisementNo.02/2012dated March 01, :2012 has be& hold/withheld until furthei g .itlat vei put on orders. The petitioner No;9 ;mac e a representationvide e-mail dated Julie 11, 2013 but was of no iVail. W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connecledmatter. Page 4 oj . f-i- ! I' .ui_Ui ll: Bffiiolnm ; i \ Similarly,the petitionerNd.2 also made arepresentationdaiediJun I •. . • . ' I ' 2013 requesting,the respondentto issue offer of a]3pointment, request was also not acceded to. Similarly, the eirn^ fe2p;|;. ' ' I • September06, 2013 ofthe petitionerNo.3 has notlbeenansWeric only on the applicationunderRTI datedNovember2'0 2013 I ' Status of issuanceof appointmentletters,that a respohse v|as • i -i • • ! 1' p-dm the respondenton January 10, 2014 statingthat; the appoUment • j • . - " ' i 'f . . .. I • -I letters have been withheld due to some administrativereajior bther informationis available with them regarding the advertisenieiit• , • I • i ^ No.02/2012. :

¶5They initially filed a writ petition Nol84l/2014 disposed of vide order dated February 05, 2014 in ithe light I petition No.399/2014 wherein it was directed that thd do : • . I •" ! ' . ; • , ! authorityto talce a decisioriin tlie matterwith e)dpeditionnot . bight weelfs from Febraary05, :2014. The impu^sidhotifiUtion: • ' ' . • I ' '! • iMarch21/2014is a decisionon the advertisementNo.b2/2012 to'k rec -r -buttl: datedl :Was vtliej :eivedi .1 an d no!. : wh] ch of was':••• writ ^ • 'J-i mpl§teht :,! .ater vhereby ^ fresl 1 / lit has been decided to redo the selection iprbcess a ladvertisementNo.02/2012. . • i6. It may be necessar}?t'o statehere,whenthe IwritpetitionWas i ] for hearingon April 02, 2014, it was statedon behalfoftlii; respo that the respondentis likely to talce some time informingthe da1 :IV.P.fCJNo. 2204-2014&connectedmatters 5^ ident e foi-ii J_.: n • ':r.i • ! -i ' (• i'-

¶11- • 1i - "i I fresh examination. It was also stated that,thei.fi-esh examinati ' ' I .1 confinedonly to those who appearediii the examinationeirlierf( ipostofManager/JuniorExecutivein differentdi^ciplLiesejc^ptfi post of Junior Executive (Fire Services). ThiisiCpurtfecte respondentto approachthe Courtbeforea firm dkq fir the ' • i is publicized. i ; ' examii i7. It is the-case of the respondent in .'its ;cdunter-ai|fidk{dt-iinitially, th£rt in terms of advertisementNo.02/b012:dated Mkfc •" I I i' i2Q12 applicationswere invitedfrom eligiblecandidatesfor ;588 vacanciesat E-1, E-3 and E-6 levelfor the postofJuniorE. iManager and Deputy General Manager respectivelyin sjs including 50 vacancies each of Junior Executivei(]ehgin4ri|i i ' - - • .1 ' • i !• punior Executive (Engineering-Electrical).Iii "jariuaryj 1( i ! respondent had on its website made available a list oif (ja prbvisionallyselected for the post of Junior Executive{inWtt Technology), Junior ^Executive (Fire Services); junioi-Exec KEngmeenng-Civil)and .Tunior Executive(Engineer-Electricai) ;issmng offer of appointment for the,post of Junior Exdcuii iChairman,AirportAuthorityofIndiavide note dMdd Februkryj04; jforwardedthe concernedfile to the CVO for comments/obseivation

¶8That priorto investigationby VigilanceDirectoratein tk; m Page 6.of96 filling ;ec 3nrjis V •" ; (. r ; r . t )r th§:, )r the i the ation filed' hi 01, jpNOf 'ii ^1 r/ n g-.G Qd: . ' i'" • •' utive ve }V.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmattevs atter, :j:—L_L,_a-_jL the appointment letters were already issued to the! fivel succe candidates for the post of Jfunior Executive (Fire Se:fvicesi). The • . I I' candidateshad completedtheirtrainingand were apibomtedon the ofsuccessfulcompletionoftraining. - I I i . I

¶9Pursuantto the note datedFebruary04, 2013 ofthe Chaiiimar •' -M ^'I'l'-'' CVO vide note dated Februaiy 08, ; 2013 Callei . ' ' • i '^ • I i documents/infomiationagainst the advertisem^t-No.0i2/2b ' i ' 'I ..' , : I . thereafterthroughseveralcommunications/instructionsalso Call|edfi •;he relevantfiles as per their requirementin the inonthof:^karc |)nwards. Meanwhile, pending investigation by; the Y i " • Directorate,the Chairmanof the respondentvide his;notejdated: b4,2013decidedto deferthe processas the CVO in the saidlnole;o thatthe investigationis underprocessand primafacie it app'earjs • : • - r .i i-ole of the agency may not be above Board and irecommeJdell ; I • I I-I- agencymay not be involvedin conductingany examinaitiontill s\ : • • . • r • • ' ^ . i r tthe investigationsare concluded. Thereafter,a notice was pii1 jwebsiteofthe respondenton May 10, 2013 statingtherein th iadininistrativereasonsthe recruitmentprocessrelatingto alive |No.02/2012has been put on hold. The VigilanceDirectoratee :the process of recruitmentand submitted a preliminaiyrepoi iChairman as per Which several irregularities were noticed W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected matters 'j -1 i isfiilU "i sai^di ti, •gi basid^ •Al- '!• ' ^•arjd )r all •V • - <• . loh - •, [•••.! mce! that tlkd1 thi ch it .the -• timei ^thd, 'L"i Lie'jtq 1 "• I me'nt >h •O] d ise canlinfed t t ) the m the Page 7.of96 ... 115 rii .1 . ! . .1 •I i 111: il-lLLJ., EOZlJipaHim I " i . recruitmentprocessespeciallythe writtenexamination|cpndUibyille ; I • T , I. agency. Thereafter the Chairman of the respond|ent irga ppproved to refer the case to the:Central Bureau od Ii recommendationofthe CVO and the samewasrCfeUvideleiterdatid i ' ' • • i May 30, 2013. Keepingin viewthe gravityin thematter,the res prgamzationfelt, as the recruitmentexercisecannUihe^lcept ^iphl IIZ gation on! fv \W •I"-- i>- in a DO mdefmitelywaitingfor the findingsby the CBI, ajegaladvideks • ' hereinit was opinedthat an inquirycommitteeimiay-beciniti enquirewhetherin the lightofthe facts and notwiiytanding investigationby the CBI, the cancellationofthe preyiousexar iwas warranted and consequently a fresh eximSnation - ; I -1 ;consiituted.In case the inquirycommitteeor the boinpetent the case may be, comes to aconchisionthat the selection: Ibeentaintedwith irregularitiesfor eventoe are somejustiliall1 : ' ' I i i ! iWithoutthere being any directevidencetheretothat the dellare i I" - i candidates is dubious, the queriest may forthwith procjed icsmcellationofthe existinglist and undertakethe ptocessofc^ndi the process afresh. The Committeeheaded by the Execuiivi I I I •; !(Technical)opined in its report dated November7/12, 2^4 'respondentmay redo the processof writtenexaminationafresh ance I •' V • jV.; tut tlid ^rimiha was 1 • author ty.as- • atioii':i;!^:.; T'J' •. i ,1: 5 be •t pro cess..h J" douMs • • •' - •7 • - •

¶0d list:]pf;4t;-;;;- Di: •ector^ ' i ' '• ' ' " that the i w: Iinvolvingthe agencyin questionfor the candidatesalready.ewa 'W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014ct-connectedmalters lied and , Page 8 o 96 —i: appearedin the written-examinationas if the candi'daieshiveji4p ; - • ' • •• • i I •' for examinationbut examinationor furtherproces'sikad not (laippen • , I ; ' ' the past. However, it should be subject to same; number of '/s i •' -'I Drteld 2d in; • •cancies i • •' I ••..'l-k ivhichwereexistingat the timeofconductingthe ex^n^inaticnm^ntst|4'r^ incumbants already joined as in the case of firei will remtin j i , • • i I • kccordingto the Committee,there shouldnot b^ any change ir ^henotified conditions. |10.. 'Therespondenthad also refeiTedto the ordersipassedby this ! - . ' - " , ' r I iin writ petition NoJ99/2014 tiiied•Vikm Mhardwaj jwj 'mthorityofIndia the Court had disposedof thd pptitiok^^ . notingthat the reportof the Committeeis requir|edtd be placL I ' ' j • ithe competentauthorityfor taking a decisioninithe mattefai ith^ directionofthe Court to take a decisionthoughnot later• '.;weeks. Accordingly,the reportofthe Committeewas appro\ • ' : j I . , ICompetentAuthorityon January 31, 2014, which was folfoWedby ~ ^'- i i InotificationdatedMarch21, 2014. ill. The counter-affidsLvitalso refers to the report of the anie;ft;fJ:-X ; . ? .-'h. any 'I ;• Cpurt;:':;:-^.;; -1- 'i. ill an ier ... dliy.M j;;-: •'t' Vigilan ce :Directoratesubmittedto the competentauthorityon April 24, 2G ; ^ J' . :may also be relevantto state here, along with the•counteriaffida^ :respondent.had filed CM No.8554/20:i4for directidns^sothat fn^sh of examination could be notified and the selection process can be i W.'P.(C)No. 2204-2014c& connectedmailers p

¶14It it the teo'inpletedas per schedule.The reply to the saidajjpfic'fitionw^s filid : thepetitioners,whereintheyhaveobjectedto the rightlofthferesijortd^l ' ' • !' to cancel tlie examination in view of the settled law ind heed :t6 • . -I jse^regatetaintedfrom untaintedcandidates. ' ; ^ • ' ' ' il2. During tlie course of hearing on November 13, 2 |s,u):Djnittedon behalfofrespondentthat there is somfe iiitemalie on the issues raisedin the presentpetition'and if granteda wese jail affidavit shall be filed. The additional,affifeit was November22, 2014. In the additionalaffidavit,tlie followingis I - • Iofrespondenthereiri> ;. , ' j ; ; .... (a) The number ot, candidates who had appeared i iexaminationhave been fkr below the number of :ca|idida;es iaiiphed,Infectthe totalnumberofappUcantswere 135367apain i • . ; _ only 33037 candidatesappeared. i ; ',

(b) Vigilancehas foundthe e-mailsto the darididatesrequ 'downloadthe hall tickets were not sent beforeicomfnenc^mei writtentest on August26, 2012. Also it was not checkbdthath( Icandidates have downloaded-theirhall tickets; This casi|alli imighthave led to lowerpercentage(19% as per vigilanceinves :of candidatesturningup for the writtenexamination.

(c) With the passage oftime which is almost two ybars .W.p.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters . Page 10 t It thi: liled ''oh foi^ the ^ho h'ai ! • i- • I I - 3t;which J ; i sstingto w ip] was: >, I the caset ± of thk tigatipn) oreso m of9t -'I ! t . I i lidLLL i L r - t ' ! :the candidateswho hadapplied/appearedearliermighLtowlgLt aAjuAed'r' ' I i .at otherplaces,and ifthe eariierdecisionto redo the! examirjation-only amongstthosecandidateswho had appeai-ed/appjiedpursjuanttoithe examinationconducted earher is followed, the cBnipetitlonlwoildltej ;very-veryrestrictivedenyingthe authorityofthe^priviledgetpjetbe ; b'esttalentinthe country. ' i :

¶13It IS also the case of the respondentthatIthe neW boiipetent -Authority reviewed the decision dated January:31,.2014 |fnailyion November19, 2014, it was decidedto scrapth^ entireprqceSspirstjak.;:'^. ^to advertisementNo.02/2012 and issue fresh^advertiseLeht•&r'^ ; advertised vide the said advertfeemeh^ iiiviti:ig ; applicationsin general and to allow all the candidateswhb had :earlierand to give age relaxationas well as fee relaxacionjaiid appointmentoffive candidateswho hadjoinedtjieAirportiaL ,IIndia as juniorExecutive(Fire Services)shall be subjectlio oi j the investigations.In other words, in view of the decislor ; Chairman dated November 19, 2014-the notificationdatkkar: i . jiiffiini also,!the..y thorit^bf:;^ 1'' I - • . ime :0f • •: i. y .. • 3f itlie'.j i, ^ tee 2014 wouldstandwithdrawnand the answeringi-espondentshall,ssueia fresh notificationatthe earliest. : . ! '

¶14Therespondentfiledafurtheraffidaviton January2i, 2015giving referenceto the proceedingsheld beforethe Courton January W\P.(C) No. 220^-2014&connectedmat''vs i-Page\i 08, of96 2015, .\ _ -• i r "I ! •I- ..J, i •' i • • 1 , ; ; ,• K-- • 1' ! • K. ''si • whereinit was indicatedto theTcspondentto reWaminethe'jiEsu whether the Airports Authorityof lncUa is willing to ii^esHgat M •'/ regard to other cadres apart from Junior ExebutiVe (ITi) which was ! ' _ .1 ihvestigatedby the VigilanceDirectorate.Accordihgito the ijespc ; • .1 ' the matter was re-examinedin the organization:and jit was cif that the detailed investigationwas done b)^ the, yigilanc /•" ' , i ' with regardto the examinationheld for the postio^JE (IT) and VigilanceDirectoratecame to a definiteconclusionthat . • • . i t j - ' . , ' • I largescale irregularitiesin the entireselectionprocess:The in ' i . Were seriousin natureand.castadoubton the accuracyofthe " ;• ' i. the iiitegiityofthe recruitingagency. Sincethe exani'conc.ucted'.' Of the disciplinesi.e. the post of JE (IT) wasi nbt ^aboveioari, ; • , i i' ' ' ' perfectlylogical and right to have a doubt on ^the credib|ihtiy • j" i selection process and results of.the other ej^aths-conducted: ; • ' i recruitingagencyat the same time for othercadresiWis also tk: the respondentthataCommitteewas constituteiJ-incomiscti(k[withjtjiel: recruitmentwork undertakenby the agency which submitteditsTei,<kt e asto indent, U"; viewj the I ; i • e Direbtofate as a te tlkeri •egu resu e. s' t case} were? •. .i'- arities ts and .. ;-i.; i Qrbhe^i ISi: ;entire H • • on November:7/12, 2013, which went into theiirrfegularities|c ... I I by the agencywith regardto othercadres apartifrorii:JE(lir). ; ' I to the respondent,as per the statisticsit-is'clearly obsi-vedthatitW maximum number of candidates in top 100 were frorh I^'elhi/NGR om mitted: Acc W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page, 2 of. 96 "1 . ;nbtwithstandingthe fact that examinationconductedwas jori J ._ _. ^ ' M Ibasis and therewas no specialisedc|ualificatioriwhichicandidate Delhi/lvfCRpossessed.It is also the case ofthe respdndenitha •the candidateswho had apjiliedwere not senttheiradrtiitcards'a ; I : • • •I ' ' Ia large numberof candidatescouldnot take theiexaminationjFuiihei it I • : , ^ ^ ' r I • • ' is the respondent's stand that the result received from the Analysedby the HR, Directorate,vide their note!ddted October ' . • -I I a:nd it was proposed that the departriientof FIRi consideriri^;tl ^ . ' ' ' • ' I i : ' j , maximum number of candidates to be called for intdrview are All I ! • • 1. 'i •' s of ohiy =• .bsii of m nd •1 ; .]: -i ' - , u' /rwere ,2012! nc;< age lat! the re sidents ofDelhi/NCRand hencethe interviewmay be hfeld at Delhi dn I i I • ! candidatesselectedfrom other part of countryimay Ibe called •However,the said proposalcouldnot be fmahsed;as4twas de to arid the JIG I i • ' ; interview may -be held as per the instructions;:contained ! i ed'l^at mi i. advertisementbut-from the analysismade it'is .clearthat th6 maxirniiin^ number of candidatesbelong to Delhi/NCRwhich is very [l The respondentalsO' referredto the preliminaryreport:ofi th'e !' • I Directorate, wherein it indicated various irregularities iilicdmmon. Vigilance} ' •I.• vi further; and recommendedthat it is a case of not only idikcrepanciesirel ated to procedureand monitoring, but irregularitiescomihittedaije the niturdof; criminal misconduct for manipulatingthe written examinMion.- the respondentalso referredto the report,whereinit was recornmsnded,that •IV.P.fC) No. 2204-2014 &. connected matters '• Page Bo[96 •H .J_J| J.LlLL.-l^..:4.1i_jL,_: ;there is no requirementto wait for consohdatedrepoitof; •as one would constitutesulficientgroundfor sending'thej^por; IIt is the stand of the respondent that in thej ligM of the; : ' • • • ' • I- . explained, the exercise of investigating other exa!ms is com])!^^^ ; ^ I unproductiveand will onl}^ lead to wastageofprecioustim6 for boththe ' • - . • • -M- . / •• iAil-portsAuthorityofIndia and the petitionercandidates.Siric(5.a ;time has lapsedin the process.andthe authorityis a| premierorganization I' ' •' ' : 1• !ofthe Countryand performingveiy sensitivenatwe o'fser-vice, ihad decidedto issueafresh advertisementinvitingIfreshapplicatio: ' , the vacanciesnotifiedin the earlier adyertisementand alsoj allc !CBI: sil^iiation candidates to appear who had applied' pursuant to t|h' advertisementto appear in the fresh examinationto be bonciUG : grant ! stand ing them age and free relaxation,wherever^applicablej I ! that the decisionto scrap the exarninatipnis, uniformv|/i lot! of therefore; for 'W jtlie^ I t , • I eariier^^ "I" r ;ed|byi; f i , bias and favouritism.It gives equal opportunityto all ar.d ei ' ' ' ' I ; competition. Since the role of agency which Has c^niluctedl.the icoiirag^sf 1 , ; examinationis under cloud, no resortto clear-the chafffroiji can be taken. : 15. No reply to the said affidavit was filed bythe petit : January22, 2015,asuggestionwas madeon behalfofthe petiti I'the respondentcan go ahead with regard to 500 odd other p W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected maiters the gram on one 3St Page 14 of er^qOni ;rs that other 96 • • • ; • ttian to which the petitionersare contendersand they should exaiyiinethe'- if iissueof"grainand chaff quathe petitionersi.e. whetherany iiiregU|larity; :• i • ' I i I ' • ' '' t ' • ! ' I • -lean be shown so far as the selection-process of the pjetitioners;|iSvs :concerned and only in such circumstancethe petitionersma> ; ' '1 inot have any right either for appointment or for!drawing of i , • . •• • " M ! ' list/meritlist. The' matter was again taken up for jhejaring, ' ' • - i ' i ;20153-whenthis Court noting, the-submissionof'the learned po selecjt;'^^: a. May:f;i on-'ri • • • i instructions that the respondent will endeavour to condu ct ecnic ^ sp inquiiy and investigationas to whether there can=be •separaii(f)n • • • ' ' ' , ' tainted from untainted candidates m the facts of the present cas ' ' I regard to the posts of JE (Electrical), JE (Civil), IE (IT), passed ofl^ ; , • i •_ r - 3/ ,e-^: ;h? a vety; j-detail order and was of die view that the ^respondeik n ms expedition and necessary resources its command, cond LlCt n nquiry:|: and investigation with respect to the petitioners for the aforesaid posts[ih;; the-Centres in which they had appeared and file its reportj as separation of tainted from untainted candidates,if possible in ae this case. The respondent filed an affidavit on August 05. 2015 iacts of! ' t stand of the respondent,that based on an investigation,;th6 competent-authority had accepted the preliminary report dated May 21 j I, July 27,.2015, wherein'it has been found that success rate;in t 015 !on:^ '-•i ; i ! 3mis of : 'percentage of the candidates who opted Delhi as' a; W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page ntre, is [96 ce: 15 c i,. • ifiiiiLiEi I i . pspioportionately high and the recruitment process panipulatedto favour set of candidates(petitioners)belong i - * • " ' region mainly Haryana State or those candidates^who have qualifyingdegree from the State and the higher writtenmalics of i • ; . ' : . ' f • candidates do not match with their poor credentialsJwith marks obtained by All India candidates.wiih| better i • • ' . i I ' lAccordingto the respondent,;the findingreiterate;?this iWest by the Diiectorate of Vigilance and the preliiiLinai:yrepb: Directorateon the basisofwhichcriminalinvesti^ationlisare ; , ' M V' il6. The lespondent would state that the investigation irevealedthat largepercentageofoptionsexercisedby;the peti; has ;ing iga o Delhi, u ' ! "• I ; obtained j , •i theses;I the av(5rage|I^r*' credentials. •• cin done j •"' :i •ftieT-'j" ; i -I'fj pencing.":[;.J has flirthl loners,jof jwrong questions matches-with each other, which il abnormal vhiie imakingone out of four optionswhen the bookletseries were . ! i- •. j Had there been a fair competition,such similaritiesin tke -• " • r I iwiitten examinationin all tliese disciplineswere not posiible imeans. It is their case that the reportalso pointedout the|pos ! .. . • ! Iwhich existedfor the manipulationof the resultsland finally arr ifferent. i esult of by i ' ' sibilities i • ' I - i .• ^...ved^ a'j j - icohclusionthaton carefulexamination'oftlie answeringpatterns,resultj' - :Ofthewrittenexammation,the centre'ofexaminations/and^recentiilslof; ^ |the petitionersviz aviz otjiercandidates,it appearstlaat tlie petitioners ibelongedto categoryoftaintedcandidates. Theyreferredto one ofthe '• W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters d r Page 16of96 ' . ' • ' ' ' i jpetitionersnamelyNaveen,petitionerNo.33, S/o iSh. Om p[aka No.117315. Accordingto investigation,he did not apj^earill the test held for the post of Junior Executive (X.irpo'rt-Op I ' pimilaity,Sh. Manu Yadav, S/o Deputy Singh Yadav havi:igF ' , ' I |118065 and being petitionerNo. 35 in W.P.(C)Noi. 459^^014 appear in the interview for the post.Df Juniot Executive bperations). The respondentwould state, the'ajlegations/ma kgainst the agency WS C.P.R are very serious and as Authority of India does not have resources to in\(es|igate jagencylikeM/S C.P.R.,candidatesetc, hence on the recomr CBI, the matterhas,been refeiTedto the Crime Branchfo'r land FIR has been registfered. The respondentwould also stkte investigationi.e preliminaryreport dated May 2il,-20a5 v^as' JjllHEEOI -IV-' ;h, •wr •at -ol ' i •' O; No-i;! •i I holT'^: did (Alt port^J^I'' i-:1f racticbs;! •he the ner Air ports ^ otitside idati 3iibf' nvestigation ' , ' I• •| . ( ;hat tllis: ot 'beforethe CompetentAuthoritywhen a decisioniwas takento ientire recruitmentprocess. The documents beforS the ColniJk^ii; lAuthoritywerethe preliminaryreportsubmittedto the Chainia,! |9, 2013 and report of the committeedated November7, 2613. ^ ' I ' Ithe AirportsAuthorityofIndiarehesupon the preliminaryiepo i V . ••• I I pirectorateofVigilanceand the reportofthe committeean'd at i I • . . • • • ' preliminaryreportof the inquiryor investigationpursuantto h jpassedby this Court• n there scrap the on H t by tiie r- • ' r' I • , ; best tii4r ' rders IW.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Pcige 17 of96 Writ PetMon (Q No. 6r2QVl»il^ i i • i - I ;• . i : I , ' ' •' '-t i lEiiiElMfflliW i'

¶17This writpetitionhas beenfiledby the petitwner I the reUefs for quasiiingnotificationdated March 211 2014 j jilirectionagainstthe respondentauthorityto issueiajlpcjintmlnt [he post ofJuniorExecutive(Engineering-InfbrmktionlTechiio: fix the seniorityfrom the date appointmentlettersiwere issu3( • - ' ' ' ! personsappointedas JuniorExecutive(Fire-Services)jIt is tHe i ' ' " i the petitioner,thatpursuantto the advertisementdatedkai'ch1, the respondent-authorityinvitingapplications.forja^uhd5^8 ya por 33 different post including Junior Executive (Engii InformationTechnology),the petitionerappliedjfoi-the af I • I ' • 'and was calledto appear in the writtenexaminatibdheld or t • , 2012. The resultsofthe writtenocaminationwere declared inter-jalias6(sldAg]'^x I '• =. i r ind ;0r Ikter. for ogy):aiid:::;j •1 ^;• to tiy ' •- -f" ;ase'of tr 3resaid All on -cancies' ! r; ieerihg-1: gus Od 2v 'f^lectlisi • !l5, 2012. He was calledfor the interviewon Novernber26i 2© pspondentauthorityprepared,finalizedand uploadedthe fir ^r the post of Junior Executive(Engineering-Civil),iJuniorE (Engineering-Ekctrical),.Junior Executive (Fire^sk-yices) Executive (Information-Technology),wherein;the 1;•petltioher- |declaredsuccessfuland was intim^edthatthe offer|ofappoint i ' . ' • I 1* shortly.Immediatelythereafter,the appointmentjlet:ers issuedto the JuniorExecutive(Fire-Services).ThepetitionerhUingnot ^V-f-(C)'No. 2204-2014&conneciedmaUers " • ^ Page 180/96 al .)cecutive' , I-I • • -I ! • ' '. '' i'. ' d Jimibr an was nent will • ' • ; ; were • : •/ •• }- receivedthe appointmentletter,had vide e-maildatedFebruary' and April 8, 2013, soughtto inquire with regardItoitlie issilari ; , '' • I appointmentletter from the; respondent. Howeler, petitiJpei |-eoeiveany replyfor the same. He, to his shodc,;camf,to h respondent authority had vide notice published ion t I i representedthat due to administrativereasons tlie irecruitn relating to the post advertised vide advertisementNo. 2/2012:(iatid March 1, 2012 has been put on hold untilfurtherlorys. The ^Detit: : • , . ' ^ • i havingfailedto elicitany responsewas constrained;to'seekinfotm requestingissuanceofthe appointmentlettersin tenns ofth^ frial listpublishedby the respondentvide e-mailsdatedJuly 5, 2(|l3,iDc !16, 2013 and October30, 2013. The petitionersoughtto iLq|i that the| ; wdbsile re .oiler: - '•I-; ition i . ; • -i elect ;obi3i. u,f .• • the Departmentof AdministrativeRefonns&Publi'cGrievancU, Go^H, bf India also. However, the respondentauthority gave a !unreasonedreply. He would also refer to filing of the W.P.i 1399/2014, issuance of notification dated March ^1, 2014 respondentauthority. He M^ould also refer to W.P:.(G)Noi 22 ! ' • ; " I ; ! • wherein asimilar challengehas been made and also in W.I|. i ! 4597/2014. He.woiildalsc state, that having come to lcno|w al - • ' ' ' 1' pendency,of W.P, (C) No. 4597/20'l4.he filed CM No. I4b8& I ' - • • I 1• the said writpetitionseekingimpleadment,whereinliberty\yas giv ^W.P\(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatttrr. p' ,A Page 196/96 vague aijici.i ;c)Nbj-- by tlji0 i 'j - I 34/2014 :c) )oi; Nb: t 4, in 3n to (. . file independentproceedings. •; is. The respondenthad filed adetailedcounter-affidavit.Une c ' " ' i ' I preliminaryobjectionstaken by the respondent'is,of issue cjfclela) jaches. It is the stand of the respondent,that tlie petitroner\vas I pare of notification dated March 2L, 2014. However ! ' ' . i ' i • . ' ' - /' ' ! approachingthe court, the petitionerwas sitting,loii tlje fer the outcome of WJ.(C) No. 2204/2014. Much Wer hat • • • - I I I i • ' I inasmuch as this Court had directedthe Airports'Authorityof i pontinuewith freshselectionprocessfor appointmerittb-otherjicsts I • . ' ' 'i ' ' to which the petitionerswere contenders,In the>b5ence o 'explanationfor delay, the petitionis hable to beidisniissed. ithe othercontentsofthe counter-affidavitare coricemk,sutfice i ' • ' I that, as I have alreadyreproducedthe stand oftheiresponin Authority of India in the pleadings in W.P(C)'N;o.22C'4/2( additionalaffidavitsfiled from time to time inthe said writ [ • . • . • . - • • • [the sakeofbrevity,Iwouldnotreferto the same once again.! ins ce aridiJ fully' Lead of waiting fflowd ' ' '• -!-• ^ndia id thM: rop'er; any p I. •; hjSofar^^s to pe '..r state ' 'Viipdrti"? tio'h, fc ;19. The thirty three (33) petitionershave filed thisipetition Iseekingfor quashingthe notificationdatedMaMi21, 2014 issuedby the ;respondentMath a fiirtherdirectionto the respondentto forthwith Ioffer of appointment/appointmentletters to the petitioners inteivalia ^ issue W [10 were W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014 & connectedmatta'-.'; Pcige 20 0/96 i { , ! 1 .. I i • •" "n i I .) .1 .. • i. ..i- •••: J •• •' ! ! •' •' .'J-i ; . :ir r !. ii-T i found suitable and were selected provisionally,for the post d I : • Executive (Engineering-Electrical)and Junior'Exe'cu pchnology)and also for a directionto declarethe results/final ; ^ ~ • • • • i I bf the selection process for the post of Juniot Exbcutiye ppeiations)andissueforthwithofferofappointnient/appoiriimertluttejr^Tlf to 'the said petitioners-whov/ere found suitable/succes'sfarjint • •; ; • • i - ^seniorityfrom the date when the appointmentlettershad bejen • • ; ' ; " ^he JuniorExecutive(Fire-Services);SufficAo'state,it is th petitionersthat they have been provisionallyselected for i " • ! • • JuniorExecutive(Engineering-Elecfical).JuniorExeoiitive i • • • , . Technology). They also refeiTed to filing of W.P.(C) N Iwhichwks disposedofon February5, 2014 in the lightoft lin W.P.(C) No. 399/2014 wherein it was directedthat the c jauthorityto take adecisionin the matterwith e}(peditiondot leight M^eeks from February 5, 2014. They refen'ed to the iw.P.(C)No.2204/2014; •. '

¶120Rest of the contentsof the writ petitionb6ing in comm Iwritpetitionsdialt above, for the salce of brevity,tkeisaid Ifai ;reiterated. Tlielearnedoounselfor tlie partiesinadeaistateijnen ;25. 2014 tliat tliey would rely on the pleadings in W,P: ' ' • I ' a204/2014. As such no separatecounteraffidavithas been fi Page 2\I of96 JliiSlIEI •; li ^ mim i :ive (In: o rm IjiTH':: i ; I ' nLer:.t 10 case c the I Inic i

¶0' i ' IX t]:ieiH;> issufed to ffile. post-or ' i I ' atioii: rm 11/ 20i4 le. d reqtidns mi Lter ;than lling of n to the i ate noi:;: or July:

(G) No/ •^d i^n the. •• . r •W.P.(C)No. 2204-20J4 coiyiecleclmatters writ petition. -illLLL... i i i i j-

¶21• This writpetitionhas been filed by ten (10) fetitiondrsintei challengingthe notificationdatedMarch21. 2014; ajidseeking fiirther, " . ' • j ' , . direction to issue appointment letters to•the fe^oners who were ^elected for the-postof Junior Execujiye (Ehg|ne|eriiiig:-Civil), Executive(Engineering-Electrical),and Junior Ekebutive(Info technology)and for afurtlierdirectionto fix their seniorityfi jJate when the appointmentletters were issued td the 'Juniorlij ii" I •-alia! jti :iTi •on :ec inior ; itionl:,:! (Fire Services). It is their case that they had appliedfor the funior Executive (Engineering-Civil),Junior Executive (fingiaee plectrical)and afterthe processofwrittenexaminationand iiiter , . i---;: ' [ • • ..y'- I thC' ; iti^e';-y't 3t •ini.;::,;- "vieA^the;'./;| rXecutite! i-O', jDetitionerswere declared successfulto the posts of Junioir E (Engineering-Civil),Junior Executive (Engineering.Electri^al |verewaitingimpatientlyfor theirappointmentlettets,lill,to th the respondentauthorityhad vide noticepublishedon its wibsit ' " • • • .1 due to administrativereasons,the recruitmentprocess|.has ^e^n hold. Their repeatedrepresentationswere unsuccessful. They |o the W.P.(C)No. 399/2014filed by similarlyplkdibandiiiat; referredto notificationdatedMarch21. 2014 wherebyit wab decidedto ! redo the entire selectionprocess afresh. Tliey referi-ed-to W.f. loekiM: .,|. ... 3ir s.

(C) fV.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Pa^s22of96 ;ated|V put od;,V •eferredi •'! No. ;!l'- 'd-i' 2204/2014 and the order passed by this Court staying the|recruit I ' I i • . > • - i "i process pursuant to advertisementNo. 02/2012. They ire ' ' i . r |W,P.(C) No. 4597/2014 challenging the decisibn! ojf thej res' HuthoritydatedMarch21, 2014. It is theircasethattlley ca kboutthe W.P.(C)No. 2204/2014throughthe petMdnersin • f ; ! ' . ' . ' i " ' ' . • petition in the second week of February 2015. i men bquiriesfrom the respondent,they were toldthatth4 matter beforethe Courtin W.P.(C)No. 2204/2014and t]ie>^would mo- ;he the ;o i''i - mehtj I..- ferred .fol'' 30: laiow! • ' ' , said writ made .bjiic jdecision/directionissued therein which would coyer the case ol" i • • I' . I ' petitionersalso and.therespondentin the meantirnpHas come; jfresh.advertisement No. 02/2015 in respect ;of 28 pcjsts: laccordingly, filed a CM No.6385/2015 in w':P\C) No. 2204/2di4 seekingimpleadmehtand appropriatedirectionsclaimingto be sim jsituatedas the petitionersin the said writ petition.^This cjoirtg: •liberty to file separate and independentproceedings anil hf^nclj thi: ; ' ' I Ipetition. :22. The respondenthas filedacounteraffidavit One oftieobjection as tliatthe petitionis hit by delay and laches. Sufficeto stat^, it is tl ! _ |standoftherespondentthatthe challengeto the notificationdatedMajict " ; I ! '• • I . 21, 2014,whichthe petitionerswereawareofinthemonthofApril2014' |is hit by delay and laches. Restofthe contentsofthe cotiUaffdavit \^-P-(C)No. 2204-2014&conmciedmattes ' \ ; Page 23 of9t is SI abi by the .the •;i' wiilh [ ••v-i. being smiilar to the pleadings and the affidavits-lin •I No.2204/2014,for the sakeofbrevity,are notrepeated,once aga

¶23This writ petition has been filed by two petitionersiikeklid seekingadirectionto the.respondentto draw up iselection/meritlist% : i .1 ] the posttheyhave beenfound successfulfor ^ppkrltnientto the pcjstof juniorExecutive(Airport-Operations)in the selection;procesJinitiated by advertisementNo.2/2012and appomtthe peti^olieiisto t ^nd for adirectionto the respondentto investigatethepredentia fietitionerson the principles elucidatedin JogmderfPal,w. >.<«/«/. 2014 6see 644. It is the case of.tke: pkitioner; • j i Advertisement No.02/2012 was 'issued by-thg resjiond^t petitionersherein made application to tlie post of Junior liiecutive :(Airport-Operations).It is theircasethatthe petitionerswh^ perfomed w said well in the written examinationon September:2,|2012 were invited tor an interviewbythe respondentand Having appeareIt linterview,the respondenthas failedto publishthe fihajlresultto jpost. The respondentmerely publishedapublicnotice or. its |keeping the recruitaentprocess relatingto the:siiid::adve|rti£ hold. They referredto the report of the committeeconstiLtec Chairmanwhereinthe committeerecommendedthatthe ca"dic W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatter^ . i j : Page 24 of96 s c ihc further' 1tte th4salid;' we ebent.i^ by the^ who tes i-" • r {• •; •' L'i ; !• • i: pqst:: •• ftijiej; Sfa that an ,: the 'i ' . • 'I • J_d LL had appearedin the exam shouldbe asked to take the exam ; • i • i , -1 Pie petitioners' case is that they tried all mearis possible lelephoniccalls and personalvisitto gatherwhen;the responde ; , I- ' / fmally declarethe resultand finishits selectionprocess. The pe pfeiTed to the filing of the W.P.(C) N.o. 2204/201.4. ;The> I ! i . ! • theii academic excellence. They are bona fide^ candidate pleaieddie competitiveexam conductedby the re'sp'ondenton heir merit. ,The respondent has chosen a. patentlyj-defectivemUhoi";iy comparingthe petitionersagainsteach other insteadof compari jwith•all other candidates in a specific centre within Delhi i - • . : I icandidateswithin the State of Delhi. The petitioner's:casej is • • • _ ] I : . - • ' • i ! leaseswherethere is no otherpetitionerto comparewith,apjititlione particularquestionpaperset, such petitionerhas been compared :unsuccessfulcandidate shov/ing the same number of commo •answersdefeatingthe assertionofthe respondent, ;The candi I • , preparedfor such competitiveexams are trainedIto:eliminateo !multiple choice style.questions and decide betwebn-prota ioptions.. The candidates, tiius, are bound to:have commo answers while attemptingthe same subject papers irrespective ' • :questionpaperset as the questionsin differentsets are;almostal I i Isame and are merely sfcijffle as a bloclc. The alleged fiiidiLg of No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters : Page 25 of96 on Lgaih.!) -• I • • 1-titi' )nersM-:f: •editd wa-\ 1r-- respondentthat selectionfrom Delhi Centre is disproUrtiona M as such impugnsthe selectionprocessin the Stateis unteUbl ; i • respondentfailedto appreciatethat the numberof|applicants 0entreare also disproportionatelyhigh. Accordingto tlie petition respondentalso failed to note that apart from'Allahabad,.De: only centrein the wholeofNorthIndiaand candidatesfrom region would have naturallypreferredDelhi as a britre d connectivityand accommodationfacilities.Accordiiigito thp p they apprehendthat throughthe unscientifican4 inc6nipet|en- •inquiry, the respondentwould term the bona fide; pbtioners Wted and furthermay also,cancelthe entireselectionproc as vitiated. They rely upon the judgmentof the!StipfemeC'ouift in the base ofJogmderPal vs. StaleofPunjab20146SCCm.

¶24This petitionwas filed on 20.8.2015and thq s^e listedtie I . , . I : _ Court on 25.8.2015. As counteraffidavitwas altea'dyfiled in k.2204/2qi4and the issue being identicalthe learnedcounsel • I • Respondentwas directedto give copy of the counter'afBdavi iW;P.(C)No. 2204/2014to the learn counselforlthe petiticine :only state, here'thatthe learned counsel for the|resp6nden|tdUn ' • • . I courseofsubmissionhadraisedan issueofdelayandiacheiwithregard: •: :to this case as well. 'W.P.fC)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 26 of96 es: vast!; to; tetter' 3titioners -•I '• 00Is of) also aS::; ngliilj-: ziti foie tike fo filed in the • . i'-i /i-^ Wirat Petition No. 8110/2015 ; . • , I

¶25This petitionhas beenfiledby threepetitionersiriter-ala directionto the respondentto appointpetitionerNo.1. k 2ti tl: • • , • " • r • jTunior Executive(InformationTeclmology)and petiti;onerkfo.S.'tdthe i • . . I- . i '' ' post of JuniorExecutive(Engineering-Givil)with aj fiirtherdii ; ' ' i i • • • " i I I . the respondentto investigatethe credentials-oftile petitioners the principleselucidatedin JoginderPal vs. ofPui iSCC 644. It is the case of the petitionersthat they aie,the • " ' . - i'. ;api3ointeesto the postofJuniorExecutive(Information:Techno i ' i ;Juhioi Executive (Engineering-Civil).and despite lapise o!l they have not been issuedany appointmentletters. They re leekfLiiga .e pc St of ?ti base )n toi d on, •v' .-id-Mi jab 2u prQvisional gy and tv/o years i :erre d to the inumberof vacanciesadvertisedto the said posts. They alsb roierr :• . • . ' ' i ' 1• ithe fact that they appeared in the written ejcanq, dbndubted ' . ' • . . • ' ' ' Irespondenton August26, 2012 and having beeii invitedfor Jnilefviewi ^they having successi^llycleared the interviewstage;!and i " . ' • . l" jsuitablyselectedprovisionallyto the post,therespondentshave; lappomtthem. They also referredto the decisionof the.resp foL'ind.; fai 3d to r !'•' thi' ;o. be-;';, editor: indent to-; ikeep in abeyancethe recruitmentprocess. Tliey!also, chlallingelthe lunscientificmethodofinquiryevolvedby the respondenttcisejiaralethi' : • I ' ' :taintedcandidatesfrom the untaintedcandidateson similarlires as has been challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P,(C) No: 8098/2015 IW.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmalters Page 2 7 T L (Prateek Singh and others vs. Airports Authority of|India), grounds have already been set out above under!tHe. keading lko.8098/2015and hence are not repeated again.: thfe respor trged the plea of delay and lachesin this case also.. issiomiss-Ld(;nt

¶26Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing f^r; . I . , 'i • petitioners in' W.P.(C) Mo:' 2204/2014, would drfiw'my attintio •' i - . I yariousnotingsds annexedby the respondentwithiitscountei affida^ ppiitend that the investigationby the DirectorateVigilance was yegard to the recruitmentto the post of Junior Executive(In:^o iTechnology)and it was in that regard, files were s^-to the V. Departmentby the H.R as is clearfrom the pages 139 to 147 oftt i • • ' . I book. In other words, it is her case that the recikimfctto 1 Junior Executive (Engineering-Electrical) and I Junior Exec (Ehgineering-Civil)was nowhere an issue.''Even otherwise Submission, that the 'opinion of the committee•that the ? •• '0 I, • •• U' .e paper post of itten examinationshould,beconductedonce again is untenableaiid could |iave given such recommendation/directionwithout^ going ! ' ' . i " ' I ^ irregularities. She would also state, .the decision of th^ c pithority to scrap the entire, recruitment 'process pur; Advertisement No.02/2012 and issue fresh advertisement ^VP-(C)No. 2204-20N&connectedirialtei's r, ' Page 26 into Dmp •suan-for 0/96 • i' ^ ' 'r' Jteiit^^ ; --i to the • • i ''j • -I;'-' '-r'' vacancies advertised vide the sdid advertisement,inviting I ; , • " [ applicationsin generaland to allow all the candidateswho had i ; earlierby giving age relaxationas weil as fee relaxatidn'alsou i Accordingto her, the reasonsgivenby the^respondentfor tak ng datedNovember19, 2014 at page 253 ofthe paperbook doese i - • J t • any wrong doing on,thepart of-thepetitioners,hereinand could ' . ' • • • • • ! I •' ' ' ^ffectedtheir selection. She would also draw theiattentioncfti ' , - • '' . • ' j i • ! • to the affidavitdated January 21, 2015 filed by We resilondtiit politestthe findings of the VigilanceDirectorateto be wrh i . . . . • ; i JInformation Technology and any conclusion thereiih coulc 'consideredas in-egularitywith regard to the other streamL referredto the variousparas ofthe reportofthe yigila^ced parasNo. 5.4.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,para 6, para8etc. She also cohte| •|the affidavit filed by the respondent on August 5, ;2015 ipnmarilybased on inquiryinto conductof the eiams.more iwhetherthere was any irregularitywith respect-ito:ths petitio Iwouldstatethat the conclusionofthe respondent!agaihstthe p was on an inferenceratherthan on aconclusivep'roofShe n o ;Tesh ap enabl^;i.:i-i'V . l"-i. ecision ; reflect'. • • •-t.- , ' • ; '1; V ot have s Court and •ega •d to ' She rectora ' i' 1. not be has ^'l!. ;e-.i.e that-151;;.' ^ ' I •: •• was.:,;!;..'- Diflcaily;;!-;:]':^-:;' mersi;it; w sp ndec ch (ners titi Id 5tate|,.: M jthatIt is onlywhenthe respondentcouldseparatethe 'chafPfrom ^graijn"•' i' linsofaras tlie selectionof the petitioners,'canthe respondent jappointmentto the petitioners. Accordingto her, the peltitio deny the• ler 3 are \W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatteri ijiiitaintedand hfid qualifiedby virtue of their meritland not bfjcaus any .cheating, fraud etc. She had .also; challenged', ; ' discrepancy/illegalitynoticed by the respondentiin their' investig pursuantto the orders of this Court dated Januar}^il, 2015 and M, I < 2015.. She also states, the finding of the Vigilanc^ Diiectorat procedural iiTegularityof the Hall tickets could liot be cowrlloa bannotbe imputed,to the agency,as the samewere sentto thscandidate ; i 1 ' 3y the H.R. departmentofthe respondent. Similarl^j,tjie syllabii Written'examinationwas to be prescribedby•;the respondentand •'! t i- ' ;• iiilHlllZB i I • ' •tHei - on 4-^1 . i-i:-!' s c f the 1 t the • • t and ; •'I nc agency. She also states,the invigilationwas doneibythe res ' ' ' '' ' i - levfen ifacasualreportwas givenby the observers!ofrespondent •; .' : , M •; I .| ;agenc3'' cannot be blamed. She states, the primaiyIgroiiiid, Iseiected candidates were from the Delhi Centre especijill) [particularState, camiot be a ground to jus'tifythexahcellatic I I Delhi centre consistsof 11 States of North India having llig icentres,it is but naturalthat the applicationswere more as corn jthe other centres and accordinglythe success jate was [nore ii !Wiiittenexamination,so also in the interview'andfinal result] S ponden ;hen the tha frc t the i ''' im:,[ a; , as the oaching par dJtQ;!:- 1 thrf i , ., 3 casts a ^: doubt on the inquiry conducted by the vigilance direct^ Iabsenceof the answer sheets. She also states instancesoflNs Manu Yadav given by the respondentshows non applicatjon 1 the. ;e n Mo. 2204-20)4&connectedmatter.-, PAge 3p een of )/P(5 mind •i inasmuch as,- Naveen appeared in Electricalexamiarid no1 in Operations. Similarly,Manu Yadav appearedinlf and ncjt i:i

i)peiations. She has placedbeforeme, the communicationse^ the same. She states, everythingwas in the realm of suspicion i^o&ingmore,whichwouldnotjustifycancellaxioil. j-1

¶27Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitionerin W.P.(C)Nq.4597/2014would also,submitthat evidence,with the respondentsto show any wrong ioihg on rpoirt idenciri writH:^:;;^ s-no;:!;?'.; tl-part :6f[ thepetitioners.The impugnedactionoftherespoiid^ntlhascausedgtiefiH prejudiceto the sewice career and fiiture prospects Of the pet The impugnedaction breeds, frustrationin the pktioners them have crossedthe maximumage limit. He statesthat-in settledpositionof law thatthe respondentsin acase ofthij ^o separatethe gram&chaff, and havingnot done thaf,.cannot " . " " ' " •''' • " kction againstthe petitionersas the same would-beivito • • ; il4, 16 &21 ofthe ConstitutionofIndia. fes. Mi-. Upendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing; petitionersin W.P. (C) Nos. 4279/2015 and 6129/2015.mUes Submissionsas made by Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Rahul^4a ?tates,there is no factualfoundationaboutthe irregulai-itiesiiavi pommitted by the petitioners. He also state, there is no No. 2204-20!4&connectedmatters \ Page3i[of9is nd tiQ .ar aei;s, m f the view, c na ;ure takei heed W\- e ofi.Aiticld foi the si 'ma ig been vidience .l_ showing any connivance between the recruiting kgendy petitioners herein.

¶29Mr.ManojV. George;learnedcounselappearingin tvio peti^ons,' I ' ' would submitthat the petitipnersai-e higWy qualiField,in one o i ' . . ' I • first Class B.TechwithM.B.A/ They are 27 yeafsofage akct I ' •• • • • - •' i whole caiTierbeforethem and such seriouschargesjiaveadeiT pffect on them. He would also state, that pylons ircm telangana, Delhi and U.P have also, been selected, which cl Remonstratesthatthe pleaofthe respondentsthat'theriiaxiiiiuriqu: : - i ' i • ' ' : • • • . ; - I • bfpeople selectedbeing from Delhi region thattoo ill till candid ^o are fi-om Haryana or acquiredthe qualificationfrom Haryar totally baseless allegation. Merely because the maximum number k bandidates ai-e from Haryana or having acquirtedqualififat i ' ' paryana, would not reveal that the examination!pikidess ii n-irregularitieson the part ofthe candidatesor on to partofthe He states,that Delhi is abig regionwithmany centres:. It is not-a Wherethe selectionhas beeneffectedonly throughOne singula but IS tln-oughathree tier process, where the irregulaiitielca committed. Eventheshow-causenotices,whichwereissue!,h jepliedto. He wouldcontestthe pleaofdelay,takenby leaijned for the respondentsby relying upon the judgmentof the LraL i ' ' ' \^-P-(C)No. 220'I-2014&connectedimlters ' • - • Page 3^, of96 and I •' i.-ij-. • " • 1-1 ase he is av ng a loralisihg ;Madra;s, n. n-e ag< pre tates •. 'i Tom ncy.|:;;; cess ^ [mot be' 3eeil; co]Luisel • v: Court in the case of Antony, RA and Ors vs. Kris!madm[M ; , . . , i •• i • • ' ^r's. He would seek the dismissal of the writ ipetition.The counsel for the petitionerstogetherrely on the fclllowingjiidgir support of this submissions Others, fz) JoginderPal and OthersvState ofPunjabiand Supreme Court Cases 644 _ \n) Union ofIndia and Others v. Rajesh P.U,^ PiithiivalniJ^a kriother(2003) 7SCC285 \ '(iii^ ShaktiSayan Tripathiandors vs AirportskuthdrityofIndia '(2010)DLT444. | "

(iv) NaushadAnwar and ors ys. State of Uttai^ firckesh cS:

(11) SCC203 • ' \ . • ! ; ; . '(v) ManojManu andAnr. Vs. Union ofIndiaand ors 2013 ' • ; i I" Eastern Coast.Raihmy and another (cprmected 'MqhadevAppaRao andors"2010 (7).SCC.678 fvzzj Kiran Juneja and ors vs. Union ofIndia and ors W.P.CZ) '12130-J9/2004andconnectedwritpetitionsdecidkdlon-20.12.2007 ^^iii) GirjeshShrivastavaandors vs. StateofMadhydPradesi ^2010 (10) SCC 707 • ^ ^(ix) InderpreetSingh Kahlon and ors v^. State.ofPunjab •2006 (5) SC 352-. . [ " p NeerajChaurasiaand ors vs. UttarPrademPawer-W2013 (l)'ALJ599 i • . ^(xi) . VikasPmtapSinghvs. StateofChhatisgarhAIR 2013k

(xii) Union of India and ors vs. Kuldeep Kumar W.P.(C) W.P.(C)No, 2204-2014&connectedmatters K legrhe'd' tents ih Hi -! ..i': 'i i • I . • :i ' .! f.i aoi4) 6 ^ i'^i a? .0 ithii and 1173 ^smi '4 12}see: - !•' VS. Mos.i \..\m an poratiohXf. '414 . No. Page 33 cf96 Lii_- <ri- $505/2013(connectedmatters)decidedon 30.7.20'\14. '• On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Jain, leameid Kdditionai.Sol citorll?; ! ' i ' Qeneral, has taken me through the counter affidavit filed .b\ ; . , • • ' ;_j •' Respondentwithregardto the numberofpostsadvertisedand the jproces; i ' I r I ^volved for making selection. 'He would state] when the list : , • ! I . . • successful candidates for the post of Junior Executive Anfbrrnaticjri Technology) was submitted by the H.R cell:;to:the ciairrmn:fbrJj;' ^proval,the Chairmangot suspiciousas to^why'mostbfthicandilatesiil' ; • ' i.e 80% approximatelywere selected from Delhi/eaiyaiisand h mfbfmed the Vigilance,Directoratewhich carriedoWSthe iiivesiigctioni:!]! The VigilanceDirectoratemade detailed-investigatiolnwithrfespe:t1 i ! ' '' texaminationconducted to the post of Junior fixecutive (ln:irm jTechnology) and submitted their initial fiiiding, ificUcaliing va lirregularities observed by' them. It is hisUubmissionij tt - • ' ; " ! • -'.-i jirregulantiesobserved by the Directorate are mot bnly dijicre|ani; jrelated to procedural and monitoring but are related to :i:i]niilalJ:? jmisconductfor manipulatingthe written'examination.The Diieclor^t^^ lalso recommendedthat there is no requirementto vyait for tonsolidated: Teport for all other disciplines/cadreswhich were ikdvertised. ;Th6: Ifindingsof one disciplineconstitutessufficientground for! sell ;W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 3 % infilMai] , .. "i' .|.V j.. 5 • (. ) . i M -i tHe|; :h •,! Leric&\iii d; W:\:: on ' nous. :lin i the ofpd .1 • . n IIP whole matterto the CBI. He would statethat theiCBIihad not . • : : • i • "l ' • J the casewhichwas ofthe viewthatthe mattermustb'e lippkedir to by the, , -P•l'-1 • i., Crime Branch, Delhi Police. Accordingto him,: tlie iCrime Bfanoh;!^ Investigatingthe whole case. He would submit,that ifthe recruit process is flawed then the petitionersshould not get iadvsiAta i : ' . i ' Same. Accordingto him, the recruitmentprocess ^as outs jprivate organizationand the investigationcarriectout^by the V : ' '' •i i . i • ' • '' 1 ' i Directorateand the subsequentinquirycaniedout ik temis jof ; ^ ; " • ' i ' ' • i '. ofthis Court,primafacie it appearsthe processhas been majnipu ih is noted that those candidates who appeared in Delhi hir Successfol. He would draw my attentionto affida-yit^ated ou rc tl p ed nent . j•• ^0._aJ - ! ;|.4i le ( lated'aii'^h'^: ve. . • i- •, W '• beeri;i:i h Jam-lary ! f': . ^015 to contend that the total number of applilarttsiiisthe Delhi, tile candidates,appearedin tlte writtentest was 49.^4% an - I presenceof the candidatesin first htmdredas pet ^Vritentest vfrgs f land the total numberof candidatescalled for interviewwi 78.11 ; • ' •' ' i JuniorExecutive(Airport-Operations).He would also sjate,• • ' • ' ' '. i ;the position in other streams inasmuch as: in Juniok ! " : 1' i ' ' : • r !(Engineering-Civil),the total number of appliqants^from D :33i.9%;candidatesappearedin the writtentestwere:43l:67%jp] icandidaiesmfirst hundred as per writtentest was 73.% and r • i icandidatescalledfor interviewwere 79.45%. He has madelrei IJ-KP.fCJNo. 2204-2014&connectedmailers ' i : • . Page B of96 i the i. %> in nil ixec hi: eser mb drer ards. WQrei I ce loif^ . • r ' ' 'er oif: ce to: v.. the preliminaryreport of the Vigilance.Directorate;and ha ihroughthe same from page 377 onwardsand drew my atteiition (ponclusion of tlie Vigilance Directorate. .He would stai:e, (pohclusionarrivedat by the VigilanceDirectorateis apossibilityan respondentcorporationis takingaction.Thereis a cogentmateria respondentto take a decision. The exani conductedicoiildriot be • ' - • ! • ^ ' • ••• t-. • ^t all. He also statedthe ma.nnerin whichthe agesncyWas aippointedby the H.R bypassingthe procedure and it is the•te(|uiremei|it(3 jnterestthatrecruitmentto the public authority,which^is peirfoiii Critical function should be on merit.. He', states,thati lion petitionershave been debaiTedfrom applyingfresh.tedruitrr , '1 r Thereis no malafide in tlie impugnedaction.,TI-4priri'ciple :Ohaffcan be invoicedifit is possible. Thereis nolstigniaattkch iofthe petitioned. The test ofreasonablenesshai beenmei k V relyuponthe followingjudgments:- ' i ' :l ta! i • t • '• , . "I • I •j . II •n 'i i ceiii nie ' •i"-,; )• .trie;:f 4; -a' -' , Mi; "' ..tHeiil!??; tha L Sharkarsan Bash 1^. Union of ^ndia;^(1991) see 47 • • , . . • ' ,i !

¶2Union ofIndia and and Ors. (1994) 5

¶3East CoastRailways Vs, Mahadev •,(1993)1 see 154 VsA ' I-' . ••[••r,. ...... r tHeU-lr':;; • ' I . j" '"'v ce^s|;;.|:i>i; ling. en pre raiiii ed to indsy 9 5|^CC •JV iVi h:. Ors. 'Fs. RDasiagiri'and:0r •IV.P.(C)Mo. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page S6 ^f96 • 1 !• L,. ni rwirr 5 see 373 Z The MiharSchoolExaminationBoard]Vs.-Subhas Chandra Sinita and Ors. (1970)1 SeC 648' ' :' •' FSo Tarim K. Singh \and Ors,, (2003) 11 sec 7S6

¶9• JMendra Kumar Ors. (2008) 2 sec 161 Ors, Vso State ofHa'^ana \fM ami Anr. Vs, IL Shayam Kumar and Ors. P M 6 sec IL InderpreetSingh Kahlon 'and Ors], Vs.. Siatk oj 11 sec 356• j ^ '

31.' Ms. Jyoti'.Singh,learned Senior Counsel,-iixkeirejomd I. . i ' ' ' $tate that the preliminaryreport Was submitted;after this QT'W Lirt jpassedan order on May 1,.2015. Accordingto her,!para .7 and I c ' ', i . • I additionalaffidavit,filed by the respondentson Aughst;5,^2Cji5 areferencewas made to the answeringpatternis totallybajsel • ' ' i pattern does not signify any wrong doingon the ]lar • . • • I petitioners/thesuccessfulcandidates. The roll niimberi'ofthle su i • ' ' . ' I pandidates was not close to each'otherto even presumJ,'tiey-icoi3ied.- That apart, the attempt of .the respondeiitsto Qorre , ' • , • i ' iootnmonwrong answers of the successfulcandidates is iLcc - ' i land overlookingthe numberof wrong answers whichvari^ words,it is acoincidencethatthereare some questions'(notkll^ Ianswerswere common. The candidatesmade an attemptas the inegativemarking. She states,some ofthe petitionershave riot a • • j .! ^ i. !' ^:! .i had A^h is; of 5cess&l: haV.(j late the mceiVed erein ;The IV.P.fC)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters In. A'hereb^•: as no : ipted re w ten Page 37 of96 1-" • luiiiiiiiii mh severalquestionsas comparedto some, who atteinpted"some quest : • ; i Slie also discount any wrong doing on the partipf the pqtitone duringthe writtenexamination,the invigilationwas doneby the Air AiithorityofIndia. Even the examination/hallticketsIwere seit I , Ail-portsAuthorityofIndiato the candidates. In otherwords!the agency, • ; ! ; had lio role to play for sendingthe hall tickets pr iinyigilations.Ifthe' candidateshad not downloadedthe hall tickets,the afeenc^^w ; " . ' ' I |ault. In fact, she raiseddoubton the comparisonofthe'ans^^ersle^tsof the candidatesby stating,ashow causenoticewas issuedtd the agency for destioyingthe same. Accordingto her, everj^hingis suspi6io the respondents. ' :

¶32Having consideredthe submissionsmade by'leamed|cou • ' • •; I lons.^ ^s-.4s|j-| : -''ri "/ 30rts!i./; I !•" not at' as I the parties, an issue of delay was .raised by ,Mr: Sanjay Jain, ASG in W.P.(C) No.6129/2015 and 4279/2015, soialso in No.8098/2015and 8110/2015. In that regard,,the plea take ' ' ' . ! respondentsin supportofpointofdelayis as undei*:-;J j • I r ,is to' Lisel for ' reamed W. T)•(C) i "Z That the AirportsAuthority:ofIndia issueUa notic on Its website on 21.03.2014 and which yds also publishedin.Jeading.newspaperson. 24.03.201^inviting' attention of the candidates who had appeared in the written examination pursuant to advertisementiN 02/2012for the post ofManager/ Junior^Executii^e various disciplines except Junior Executive (Fi Sei-vices) that it has been decided to re-do the entin selectionprocessafreshfor the abovepostsexceptJiinio m • i I re •IV.P.fCJNo. 2204-20(4&connectedmatler.i Page 38 of96 Executive (Fire Services) due to administrcitiye reasons and also that the notified•terms and conditions in tie advertisement No. 02/2012 will, remain same and ti e candidates who earlier appeared in the examination ar.d subsequentprocess are requiredto appear agtiin ml tie re-examinationto be conductedandfurtherihdt the da of written examinationwill be notifiedin due'courseof ' time on AAl's website. ' ' ; '

¶3ThatawritpetitionhearingNo. 2204 of26'^14 MohitPahwar & Others VersusAirportsAuthor India wasfiled and listedbefore the Cburt\on02M.2014 whereby similar reliefas sought in the ips'tantpetition was soughtby the Petitionersthereinahd\byiotderdate.a '

02.04.2014,thisHon'bleCoiirtwhileissiiikg\ndticei\i. the • saidpetitiondirectedthe Respondenttherhiri:i.e. Airports ' AuthorityofIndia to approachthis Hon'bleCourt before •• a firm datefor fresh examination is, publicized.' Tllar:- thereafteranotherwritpetitionbeing W.P (cfNo. \l597 ^ of2014 titledAbhaySharmaand Others VersiisAirport^'- AuthorityofIndiawasfiledand UstedbeforetHis Wn'ble'' Court on 24.07.2014,onwhich\dateMAHpn%le'kow was informedregarding the pendency df fF.P.fQ. No 2204^ of2014 and also that pleadings in said writ petitionare complete. This Hon'ble Cotit vide the sa^^d orderdirectedthat W.P. (C) No. 4597ofmlbeplailQi ^orhearingalongwith W.P. (C) No. 2204'pf2(}14. •f. J

¶5Thatvide orderda.ted25.07.2014in W.P. (C) No. , 4597of2014, Counselfor thepartiesstated\hdtthey shallrelyon thepleadingsin W.P. (C) No\ 2204of 2014for thepurposeofaddressingargum'entsas pleadingswere completein W.P (C) No 2204of 2014. ' . - ' . •

¶6Thatthereafterargumentscommencedin W.P. (C) No. 2204 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 4597 hfi20l4 oh

25.07.2014whichcontinuedtill17.12.2014ahdwasI conclude on the said day, however, on 17.12.2014"th Lawyersabstainedfrom workandthePetitionw.as adjournedto 08.01.2015.In January,2015, therewas ; L ' ' • 1 i ' ij• i. T '1' ' •fi- ';."V I'V.P.fC)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 3p 0/96 a changein the RosterBenchandthe saidpeMon ^ms listedbeforeanotherHon'hieJudgeofthis \ Hon'ble Court. Even before the said Court the, rrtatter was arguedsinceJanuary,2015 itself ': I" I'

¶7Thepetitionershereinwerefullyawareregarding the notificationdated21.03.2014,[however!'insteadof approachingthis Hon'ble Court the said\I^^etitioners werefencesittingandawaitingthe outcomeofW.P.(C) Np. 2204 of2014, when much waterhad alreadyflown inasmuchas vide order dated 22.01.2015,this Non'ble Courtdirectedthat the AirportsAuthorityhf^Inkiacan continuewithfresh selectionprocessfor appointment to other posts than to which the Petitioners :ai Contenders. • ' 'i I !

¶8Thatthe Hon'bleSupremeCourtin StateofOfissa : VersusMamataMohantyreportedas (2011)J SCC ; 436has dearlyheldthatsection3oftheLimitation \ Act, 1963, makes its obligatoryon thepart'qfyhe Courtto dismissthe suitorappealifmade^cfier;the^ prescribedperiod even thoughthe limitationis notser up as a defenceandthere is hoplea to rais^e theissue oflimitationevenat theAppellatestagebecausein someofthe cases itmaygo to the rootoftlie matter".

¶33The pleadings as made by the respondent,aforesaidwen:I'd pveal that the petitionerscould have approachedthe Cour ear iei ; • ... I y j , I' '• i .I-' . r . [ !:! orii}^ despite the knowledge,having not filed the petitionat the pointoftime,the petitionmustbe dismissed.'Theireliancepllacec i , ' •- , j ! Jain on thejudgmentofthe SupremeCourtinthe case ofSMieL 'md mmiher vs. MamataMohanty(2011) 3 SCC. 4'36 wher were thatthe respondentwas appointedas aLectiirerin NialiC

9.7.19/9 and her appointmentas such was approvedby the D W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters " ' J. Page 40 6/96 appr•op b n^ei; ¥^1 •1; !; ism em 'Or he facets :e on T of leg :cto IpigherEducation,Orissa.andwas grantedthe beiiefitof recpi\ir . < i ' ; . , • , i grant-in-aid. Notificationdated 6.10.1989 was issiied for Jevis Lg ITRT^s![fig!r[gi|ni I/3p Lrig'thisj pay scale v/ith effect from January 1; 1986. The: said notiflc Applicableonly in such cases where post has beenigrantedthk be: I , , i - j-i • , ' t ' ' ... grant-in-aidscheme by 1.4.1989. The'respondent!did,nol mie' any tion :\vas- •• • it of ijefiresentationbefore any, authority to get;the bienefit of tip said . notificationdated 6.10.1989. Rather, approached|the High Couii • ' ! :.ljl1.2005by filingWritPetitionNo.r4157/2005iseekkgadii;ectio ihe State Governmentto pay the pre revisedpay'scalewith ef'ect January1, 1986placingrelianceon the variousorder'softhe ffigh:C fhe State ofOrissacontestedthe writ petition. ThelHighCouitpit reliance on the earlier judgment allowed the v^itipetition gWin^ the fDenefit of the pay scale to her with effect from; 116.1984. The.High• Court has held in para 53 and 54 as under:- "53. Needless to say that LimitationAct\1^63: doel'n apply in writ•jurisdiction. However, the \dqctrim-^ limitation being based on public policy,]the •principleci enshrined,therein are applicableand writpetitions'are dismissedat initial stage on the groiink of delay ^a)id laches. In a case like at hand, gettinga'particiilarpay scalemaygive rise to arecurringcavLseofaction.In \siie}'. an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed cij^ the groundof-delayancj.. laches and, the court may refiise \o grant relief for the initial period,in case of q}i unexplainedand inordinatedelay. In the instantcase, me respondentclaimed"the relieffrom 1.1.1986byfiling a petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for sorn^ IW.P.(CJ^Mo.2204-2014'& connectedmijiie.-s Page 4 tie on in to, tifom, ouit. Lcingj of96 L ; ' I unexplainedreason granted the relief me^f. \l.6jh84, though even the Notificationdated 6JO.1989makes Iy applicablew.e.f I.l.-J986. \ \

¶54This Court has consistentlyrejected.\h4donterkion that apetitionshould be consideredignoringfhe d^elay and laches in case the petitionerapproddhesthe Chvirt aftercomingto Imow ofthe reliefgrantediythe Court.in a similar case as the same cannotfurkisH d prdper. explanationfor delay and laches'}^Alitigc^fcai&idtMake up'-from deep slumber dnd,. cfaim impetus ]from]t^ judgment in casesfwhere some d.iligent-person 'hc^d approachedthe Court Mnthin a reasonable\tikie. (See:' M/s Rup Diamonds&Ors., v. Unionofjndia Ors., kzk •1989 SC 674; State of Karndtaka .& Ors ' v k " Kotrayya&Ors., (1996) 6SCC 267; andlJagdishlil Ors.v,StateofHaryana&Ors., AIR 1997}SC'Q366). ^4. Insofaras the relianceplacedby Mr. George bnithe j . 1 . • • . ! i ! the Kerala High Court in the case of id as. nent of, On is concerned,the Higlj Goiirthai in para 21 • . -1 . •M 22has statedas under:- • ! : I ' ' .• ' ' • • • • , . ' • ' • i . I' "2], First of all; we will deal with the May aspec m \i" the yecr 2003. h has been specifically.•submitted oh tehalfoftl^« : wnt Petitionerin f/.P.(C) No.26486/2003ihitihoJn£ , . contestedJorthe selection, he was noj foriunUte to l}e includedmthe select list. He came to'/oio# 'libovU A the ajfidavitfiled on 1.1.2003 in O.P. I<[o:j8462/Joob - ^''h^S0-dtoJhe assigningcf Ms fb,\ additional . qualification. Thereuponhe attemptedto get the detail? : ofthe marks_awardedto himfrom the Uniferiitji;butwa notsuccessfulItwa, inthe abovectrcim&tancesthe ii,r . Petition was happened to be filed in '^^ig^st. ^003 - impugningthe selectionprocess, whereby he had been , exclvdea without giving additional marks an^ on \the l-ff.P.fCJNo. 2204-2014&'connectedmatters groundoflessserviceleft. Therefore,-therim'cis no deja I

¶22Ofcourse, as pointedout by the Appellants, iril tl decisionreportedin RoshanLai and Ors v. lnternati\)nal AirportAuthorityofIndia and Ors. 1980\(saipp.) 5JC,b 449, even t^'Voyears delay in challengingthe appointinent had been found to he detrimental to the Petitioners. when one incumbenthas explained,to thepossibleexten the reasonfor the delay in cases arisingviolationoft} guaranteedrights under Article i6 of the tohsiitutio% such explanationM'henfound acceptableto q reasonable mind shall have to be considered, inl 'theover dll circumstancesofthe case. One'imponcintcircumstanqe is that challengingthe veiy same selectionprocess impugning the notification at the 'threshold, there been at leasttwo WritPetitionsfiled in time.\ Theperson selected had already been thiis facing \the challen^ againsttheirselectionat,least in two WritPetitions,filed in time. In such circumstances,when anotherihcuwib'ey.t, with some more details, has come with an e'cjiiql challengeofferingexplanationfor delay, necessarily,as the matter involves the violation and infractionof the rightguaranteedunderArticle16 ofthe Constitution,tjke delay can be excused to entertain such yvint Petitions Therefore, the contentionregardingdelay is ofno avci. for the writAppellantswhen they themselves,werefdciyg challengeagainsttheir appointmentsat le'ast in two Writ Petitionsfiled in time. No specialor added'prejudiceis, in any way, caused to them. " and had

¶35In the case in hand also, there is no denialto the!factthai Nos.2204/2014,4597/2014have been filedin this Couk chilen : • - ' • I I : • I •' " • ' • ' ! Notificationdated March 21, 2014. Even in the relevantpjira the counter-affidavit,whichhavebeenrefen-edto jabiovb,the rejip ireferred.tothe pendency of the W.P.(C) No;2204/2014 dndf ipetitionis partofthe batchofthe writpetitions,whichare being •r-' i " I M ^ ^ • . : • t , vi •1- ^r ) ; j!- 5ing:ty.1 grap tlS of! . i • lent? said :ided on he de W.P.fCJ No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters • Page 43 of96 —~ v.. • :•( • I fey this order. Notingthe fact that the writpetitionhas not beer ; • •• i I . • and also the similarityof the facts of the case in: hand,with the fac t|he judgmentofthe High Court, the reasonsgiven fey the petilicnersin Ijhe petition, which gives a plausible explanation for the dila cr • -1' . 4 r.] f. '!. tsinjl:''' approachingthe Court,this Courtis ofthe viewthatthe delay a . • - L ^ wouldnot come in the way for a decisionon the iiieritof issueraisec

¶36On merits, the challenge in this batch of ipetition notificationdated March 21, 2014 whereby it was decidedto ' ' ' ' I entire selectionprocess afreshfor'thepost ofManager/JuniorK> -Ifor the candidateswho had earlierappearedin the ekaminat bf advertisementNo. 02/2012. During..the peiidehcy If t petitions, the respondent had reviewed the impugned decision; bri jNovember 19, -2014 whereby it was decided lio [Scrap the .^ritire recruitmentprocess pursuant to advertisementlSroj02/20l2and i: ifresh advertisement for the vacancies advekiied vide-iadvertisementinvitingfresh applicationsin generaland to allc ^candidateswho had applied earlierby giving age relaxationa Ifee relaxation.Even thoughthe decisionhas not been,challenged ichallengein thesepetitionsis to the notificationdatedMarch21 i , 'j ideem it appropriateto consider the substantiveprayer male in-the ipetitiontliattoo for adirectionto the respondentto issueSppoinimeiit \W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatter:: ' IC .on tc sdi :ec n) tprihs le. the • Y\ iiTi:j .-I ''r ch'es thei '• •;j.' ):!lthe writ! V a .1 the; i.' well as ..: s tfee j: 2QMi Page 44 Tf96 •! ' H-i '' i •" , I •41 •/•'Hi lletters to the petitioners who were found :sui^able:aiid I . • •' • '! I i_-iprovisionallyfor;thepostofJuniorExecutive.' ,1 ^ I -1 elected

¶37Before .1 embark to consider the submissions as made the' vi l|eamedcounselfor the parties,awordoh the orderspassed,by t time to time in these petitionsspecificallyin the iead case WI : . ' i • !•• 2204/2014. On April 2, 2014 Avhen.thewrit petitionwas liste first time, diis court noting that fresh examinatidniis bonfi s Court 1] iiec .(C fd dii ;ed those who appeared in. the examination,held ^rfier direc 'I the y to I p\/\ ]_• the respondents to approach the Court before a fiiin date for 'ihe fresh examination is finalised. On January' 22, ^01 ithis Cc i- ' ^ " submissionsmade by the learned counsel for th4 petitioners i • i i regard to 500 odd other posts, thaii; to which |the petiticners contenders, respondents can continue the freshIselection process for appointmentbut with,regard to the petitioners,the|responc[en;sst ^ • .1 ' i "i ' fexaminethe issueof"grainand chaff i.e whetheranyliiTegjlaritieM j3e:shownso far as the selectionprocessofthe j^^titiohersis eoi>ce dnly in such circumstance,the petitionerswould jnot have aqiy ^itherfor appointmentor for drawingofaselectlist/mentli

¶138OnMay1, 2015,thisCourthad passedthe followingcird^ ;

¶2The.aforesaidorderswerepassed in the light of th ratio ofthejudgmentofthe SupremeCourt in the case I JoginderPal and Others v'State ofPunjab and Othe? W.P.(C)No. 2204-20!4 connectedmailers lurt or at the] • I - [ with ; I 1: i-Page 45 cf96 are OUld I cari; . , ; i I V".r right l- .1 • i-^f I, • i '-Li'1 ,.1, i •i -. • ' .-IL-il.

(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 644. and.iylaicfi ratib is containedinpara^aphs 10 to 10.5 of thejudgmentwhich read as under:- • | "10. From the,readingof the.judgmentinIfiderpfeetSmgh Kahlon case one can discern-thefollowingprinciples: 10'.1 An appointmentm.ade in violationofArticles1.4 md 16,of the ConstitutionofIndia would be voicl'Itfvoiild ie a miUit}K Since, the services of the terminatednot in terms of the Rides biitdn view 'ofith commissionof illegalityin the selectionpr^ess\invohe the applicability of the relevant provisions.\of th^e/statutes as also the effectof theprovisions}ofthe Article311 of th Constitution need not he considered. • • ^; ; i

10.2. Before afinding that an appointment:has Veen mac. in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution be arrived at, the appointing authority'\miist Hake consideration the foundationalfacts. -Onfy when \uch foundationalfacts are established;can the hghrprincipl be applied. When the servicesofemployeesare tkrminhted inter alia on the ground that they rnight Have'didediand abettedcorruptionand, thus, eitherfor the'sake'ofprobily in governanceor inpublicinteresttheir,seryid,es 'shoulflhe terminated, the court must satisfy itsdf that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside a. selection may requirethe State to establishthat the[processwaslo tainted that the entire selectionprocess\is liable to..he cancelled.In q case ofthis nature, thus;the'qii^siionwhich requiresserious considerationis as to whetherhue to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and '-rrieritoridm .candidatesshouldalso suffer. ' ^ •

10.3. Adistinctionexists between a proven caie of> cheating for a board examination and\ 'an;.iinpr imputedcharge ofcorruptionwhere the appointment civilservantis involved.-Only in the eventit isfound impossibleor highlyimprobablethat the taintedeaselcar be separatedfrom the non-taintedcases QOuld:;en rnasse orders of termination be issued. ; BojK 'the htate Governmentas also .the High Court in tPiat view oftie mattershouldhave made all endeavoursto segregatethe taintedfrom the no-tainted candidates. >ei ie ran ink) nasi oven of 'o be iri'P' IJV.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmalier.'i Pa^e 4^ o/9(5 i-'i! • !• M'!' • i 1.

10.4. Caseswhich may arisewhere the selectionprocessis perceivedto be taintedmay he categorisedin the'follo4^ijig manner: • . . i i

(i) Caseswhere the "event"has been investigated

(a) Cases where CBl inquiry -took place 'and completedor a preliminary-investigation-Was', conchidec

(iii) Cases where the selection.was made but appoin-tmei was not made. '' -

(iv)- Cases where the candidateswere alsti \ineligible'an the appointmentswere found.to be contrary th law o rules.' • • ;• T' ' I . Ifthe servicesofappointeeswho hadpiifinb/ewyeais-of sennce were terminated,compliancewith threeprinciples at the hands,of the State•was :imperafi:^^e'\vik.'.(1) tp establishsatisfactionin regard to the 'suf^ciency.of th materialscollectedso as to enablethe Stateko'arrfveat ii satisfactionthat the selectionprocess.was tainted; (i) to determinethe question,that,the illegalitiesc'ornmktedwert to the rootofthe matter, whichvitiatedihe^mhrd^selectio process. Such satisfaction as also the-^sufficienc^ oj materials-were required to be gathered^ reason hf a tnorough investigationin afair and -transparentmannei

(3) whether the sufficient materialpresent ^enabledl'th^ Stateto arriveatasatisfactionthatthe offidersin rnajlriL had beenfoimdto bepartofthefraudulentptirposeor the systemitselfwas corrupt.

10.5. Once the necessaryfcKtualfindings hs.emmerated above are^ arrivedat, or it is-foundimpossible-orhighL improbableto separatetaintedfrom untaintedcases^ ail appointmentstraceableto the officersconcernedcouklie cancelled But admittedly, in the present case,-:although there had been serious impiitationsagaimt'Rdvindirpal Singh ^idhu being at the helm of the dffSrs\cf:theStat Public Service Commission, all decisions made, by the Commissionduring his tenure are yet, to te set aside (Underliningadded) ' , W, therefore eitherit ispossibleto separatetaLed fiom the untaintedcandidates or it is not possible io separate them because of the type of infraction\and lesuhantlythe entireprocessmay have to be scrappedIf W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatte,s Page 47 of96 •"i •l-.. " i'"i': r !1- .• I' : 'U •i :..1- ;•! •. :•] .j- : >!' 1 i •: I • • V,. however, it is very much possible to sepai^aie the grai.. from the chaffi.eseparationoftaintedcandidates,from the imtaintedcandidates in a selectionprocess which is\not M'hollyvitiated,the selectionprocessas awholeas per. t]\& caseofJoginderPalSingh (supra)cannothe scrapped^ ; . ' .1 !

¶4Today, , the learned ASG appeared, and. whd appearingfor the first time, and after some argimients Mm-e heard, the position arising is thai alt that is b'eir}g, asked from the AAl/respondent is that it is bound id conduct ail investigationas per the resources•available with it. with respect to the petitioners/candiclates,\the centres in which they appeared, the' re,suits \of those centres, the answers given by the petitidja^rsand dther candidates of. those centres and every •other', material aspect which is possible to be investigated\in< order }o hiow whether at all, there can be-a separationof the tainted from, the untainted candidates \cmdi whether thereforepetitionersare imtaintedcandiclM^s who muiit getselection? ^ ' T I ' • ' '• \ , I

¶5Ofcourse,ifthe malaiseis suchthatit is\n6tplpssiljleh separate the tainted candidates from ,\the \imtamtJd candidates, then obviously, may be a conclusioncah o'e arrivedatwith respectto cancellingofthe entire:selection .process, however, assumptions and presumphohs\cJn neverbe the answerwhen the issue is ofari^attendtaktIj specific candidates i.e. specific nature o/i^/ze' iisue as-io Vi'hether.the candidatessuch as thepetitionersare tainted Of they are imtaintedand also the fact that the entir selectionprocess cannot be found to be.vikaied i cancellation.as a whole. • ' [ \

¶6Accordingly, learnedASG on instructionsstates\thai AAI/respondent will endeavour to conduct a specific inquiry and investigation as to whether'thefe can he separationofthe taintedfrom the untaintedcandidatesin the facts of the present case with regard,to the subjeli examinationconductedwith respectto the pdsts'cfjiiriioj Executive (Engineer-Electrical)and Junior Executive (Engineer-Civil) and Junior Engineer (Informatidi 'i^chnology), 2012 Examination." W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmailers Page 48 0/96 I IfUBWIIItiilB •: ! •! i 3!9. Pursuantto the aforesaidorder,,the, respond'ehtlhadcarkedou . , ' i exercise and filed a report b)' vv^ay of.an additional affidavit. Suffic state, regrettablythe petitionershave not chosen'|to|file a jesDons such an Importantaffidavit. Even thoughthe:ori:leridated May ; . ! ! j riefersto the judgmentofthe SupremeCourtin Jogind^r-Palm : . . J I " • I I I , , j . vs. State of Punjab and others (2614) 6 S^C''644, for perspectivethat too on the basis of the judgme'rits:referred tc counsel for the parties,the positionof law in matters-fofthis i ' • ' • ' i ! •' i . • ; ! i ! enunciated by the Supreme Court in Inderpreet'Sirigh • bthers vs. StateofPun]ahand ors (2006) II SGC35^, is' well Mieieinthe SupiemeCourthad refeiTedto its earlierjudgments paras 46 to 59 has noted as under:- • I i

¶46Adistinctionmoreoeverexists betw'eena proveH case ofmass cheatingfor a hoard examinationand ari, •iinproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointmentofa civilsenfant is involved. -

¶47In Bihar School ExaminationBoard v. Subliish ChandraSinhaandOthers[(1970)1SCC <548],.theconn came to a finding that the high percentage of mdrks obtainedby the candidateswho appearedat the selection ofthe centre in questiondidgive rise to a.Suspicionthai unfair means had been practisedand the Board lyas justifiedin investigatingthe case. While the High Court held that despite^ the same, the principles\of natural justice was required to be complied with; this Court noticed the reports of the experts and came to \thi conclusionthat the results thereofspeaks-forthemselves'. QHllI :•. ; I• • . -, j ; •i' "v; ;. i ;|the;, \ \ ' [ "• tO;i:;;:;X': qi b b)' ^'ers itttr jej; •; i . I natUiii ds settled,' ^d in } _/ \ \ 'i i '-'I :• I -.V -] ; •. ! ' J. v W.P.(Q No. 2204-2014c£ connectedmatters Page 49 of96 . -I It was noticedthat whereas in other ceriteh\'thehyera^ of-successful candidates was 50%, in 'the icenter \in question, the percentage of passing in different,papers were unusuallyhigh rangingfrom. 70% to"l'pd%^In t'kat'\- view of the matter, this Court held: '•] ' • "12. These figures speak for themselves..'However, satisfyourselveswe ordered that some answer booJts brought for our inspection and many| such. were produced. A comparison of the ansyver books \showi such a remarkable agreement in the 'answe -'-s 'that no doubt was left in our minds that the \:stiide: assistance from an. outside source, fl^etef conclusion that unfair means •were'• adopted stands completely vindicated. " , • - ! •

¶13This is not a case ofanyparticularindiyidudTwhois being chargedwith adoptionof unfair means, birt of the conductofallthe examinees,or at leasta v'dstmajorityof them at a particidarcentre. If it is not \a question of chargingany one individuallywith lu^ir^hikambur io condemnthe examinationas ineffectiveforAhe.piirpossit was held Mustthe Boardgive an opportimifyto-all the candidatesto representtheir case's? We tjiinkindt.It was not necessaryfor the Boardto give an opportunityto the. candidates if the examinationsas a whole Wiere being, cancelled.- The Board, had not charged hny 0ne ynth iinfair means so that he could claim to d^end himself • The examinationwas vitiatedby adoptionc^u^ir means, on a mass scale. In. these circimstancei it ivduld be wrong to insist thaf the Board must hM a'detailed inquiryinto the matterand examineeach indjyidualdrne to satisfy;itselfwhichofthe candidateshad'not..adoptee urfairmeans. The examinationasawholehad to go." Such is not the case here. • ^ ; i '

48.-InAnamicaMishraand Othersv. U.P:'{PiiblicSeryic^ Commission, Allahqhadand Others.[1990. '(Siipp) ^icd 692],^ an error was found,out at the st^ge of calling candidatesfor interview. This Court opihed that as, nq defect Was pointed out. in regard to the wrkter ]!'V.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 5Qof96 ' t! lL_I examinationand the sole objeqtionwas col^fmedto the exclusion of a group ofsuccessful candidatei in interview there was no justificationfor cancellingtk^'writtenpart of the recruitment examination and the situation coiM have been appropriately met by setting 'aside-the recruitmentand askingfor fresh interviewof all',eligible candidates' on the basis ofthe written examination. • i •

¶49Yet again in S.P. Biswas and Others v. 'Stdte Bank India [1991 Supp (2) SCC 354], the coiijt refiised. interfere with the resiilt of the examihatton,as\ it shown that there had been neitherany mass,.copyingror thefinal resultwas shown to have been infii!i.encedby the unfair means byany candidate. | !

¶50In those cases also taintedcasesM'ere.sepdj^atedfrbm. the non-taintedcases. Only,-thus,in the everit'<it isfound to be an impossible or highly improbable,]en masse orders oftermination could have been issued i' ' '

¶51Both the State Governmentas also the High Court in that view of the mattershouldhave made all kndeavours •to segregatethe taintedfrom the non-tdintedicandidate';. r- . • ^ I i" j2. We may, at this stage, notice that thefallowingcases would fall in the different categoiiesl which are enumerated hereinbelow: . \ "

(i) Caseswherethe 'event'has been investigated:\

(a) Union Territory, of Chandigarh y, Dilbagh Sinsh

(1993)1SCC154atparagi^aphs3and 7.., J

(b) KrishanYadavv. StateofHaryana,(199.4)'4SCC 165 atparagraphs12, 15 and22. ; | ,

(c) Union of India v, Anand Kumar Pandej/, (1994) 5 . SCC 663 atparagraph 4.

(d) HaniirnanPrasadv. Union ofIndia, (i\996)\10 icc 742 atparagraph 4. . ' . i

(e) Union,ofIndia V. Q. Chalcradhar,(2002) 3SCC 146 at paragraph 9. o/ to as y.p.flC) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 51 0/96 - ? : i.- , ; .j; '• i, i •i r -.1 i_.L

(f) B. Ramanjiniv. State ofA.P., (2002) 5\SGCJ33at paragraph 4. ; : ; '

(ii) Cases where CBl inquiry took place. , and was-completed or a preliminary investigation wds, concluded:

(a) O. Chalo-cidhar (supra)

(b) Krishan Yadav (supra)

(c) Hamman Prasad (siipra)

(Hi) Cases where the selection-Was made hut y\'as not made: ' •- J appdintm.em

(a) DilbaghSingh (supra)atparagraph5. . i 1 •(b) Pritpal,Singhv. StateofPlafyaha,(1994),5'SGC 695,^

(c) AnandKumarPancley(siipra)atparagraph 4. (d.) Hanurnan Prasad (supra) i

(e) B. Ramanjini(supra)atparagraph 4. | •

(iv) Cases M'here the candidateswere also in^i^jhl^aha the. appointmentsM>ere found to he cdntrqry td law ot rules: , i '

(a) Krishan Yadav (supra) :

(b) PramodLahudas v. State ofMaharashtra](1996) 10 see 749 wherein-appointmentshad been made withoiU folloMnngthe selection,procedure. ! , ' >

(c) O. Chah-adhar (supra) wherein appqiritmmts had been made without type-writing testt 'ark otheir proceduresofselectionhavingnot beenfoltbwed. • { I • i 5d. It is how well-settledthat a decision is cm authoritj for what it decidesandnotwhatcan logicallybe.dediicecl therefrom,It is also M^ellsettledthata ratio ofcase r/ms.t be understood having regard to the fact situatiok obtainingtherein.[SeeP.S. Sathappan(Dead)By LRk vi AndhraBankLtd. and Others (2004) 11 SCC 672]ik.A GopalalcrishnanNair v. State ofKerala, (2005) 11 \W.P.(C) No. 2204-20N&connec'.ndmatters Page 52 of96 i"-. • I : i- .u'. 'f \ /, •. ; - .••4 .•'r •I:.:-';' !• •SB :n ik;: - i -t •; ! i^ -'I: •L; 45' and Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank -Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91]. . V.

¶54In Benny T.D. and Others v. Registrar of\Cdoperatiye Societies and Another[(1998) 5 SCC 269],, this Coiirt repelled a contention raised therein that in view of the findings of the PublicInquiryConmissionthai there,hps been tamperingofmarks in respectofseveralcafididat^es and as such there .has been no fair and] dbjective selection, piiblic interest demanded annulment of ihe entire selection. This Court held that the salnd could not be done as the same would tantarhountto gross \iolgtion ofprinciples of natural justice wPiich cannot be brushed aside on the ground that public-, interest] demands anmdment of the selection.

¶55Yet again in OnkarLai Bajaj and Others V. Union oj India and Another[(2003) 2.SCC 673],:this; Court yvhile • dealing with a case''of en masse canceUqt'iofi of .'he licences granted to the LPG DistribiUorsi as h residt whereofunequals were said to have been tlubbed by reasonofarbitraryexerciseofexecutivepoiver,.thesam.e y\^as heldto be impermissiblestating; | M "45. The solutionby resortingto cancellationofall yvas worse than the problem. Cure was worse than khe disease, hqual treatment to unequals is\ nothing inequalit}>. To put both the categories-tainiedycind rest -on a par is wholly unjustified,\ drbitrc •unconstitutional being violative of Article of Constitution" i • ' It was further held: ' hut the iry, the "46. The aforesaidobservationswouldapplywith equalif not more,force to DSBs if media exposure that, the, allotments were made either to the high .poliiicd Junctionaries themselvesor their near and dear ones is collect, the authoritieswould riot only be justified in examiningsuch cases but it wouldbe their\duty to do\so. Insteadoffulfillingthatdutyandobligation,the executive cannotunjustlyresortto cancellationofallthe allotrnmt^' \W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters .Page 53 of96 •• :--^i •'ik';': • !••• -if •••'.I; en masse by treating unequals as equals wiihdiit even prirnafacieexaminingany casesexposedby the niedia/ This Courtfurther observed: - . | ' ."35. The expression "public interest" or] "probity- \in governance" cannot be put in a. straitjadket.fPublic interest"takes into itsfold severalfactors^ hm-e,cannot be any hard-and-fastrule to determine M'hat is. public interest.The circumstancesin eacHpasewoii^ddetermAie whethergovernment.actionwas taken in piibkcimterest or yvas taken to upholdprobityin governdnce. i

¶36The role modelfor governanceand decision•tak ihereofshouldmanifestequity,fairplay andjustice. T-,^ cardinalprincipleofgovernance\in a'ciyjlizfd\society basedon rule oflaw not onlyhas to baseon'trdnsparency but must create an impressionthat the decision-malang ypas motivated on the consideration of probity. The Government has to rise above the nexiis \of vesied imerestsand nepotism:and eschewwindow-kressing.The act-of governance has to ' withstand. '\the \iest' judiciousnessand impcirtialityand•avoid\arbi¥ary capricious actions. Therefore, the prihcfple of governancehas to be tested.on the touchstoneofjustice,' equity andfair play and ifthe decision,is Hot leased\on justice equity and .gaxr play and has\ taken Ato considerationothermatters, though on.the.fad,^ofit, ihe aecisionmay look legitimatebut as a matterhffiict the reasons are not based on values but to^ achievepopillar 'Accolade,thatdecisioncannotbe allowedtoloperate.

¶56.Yet again in Union of India and OthL vj P.U., PuthuvalnikathuandAnother[(2003)'7SCC 2851 •this Court observed: ' . -i' "•Applying ft unilaterallyrigidand arbitrarj^standardto cancelthe entiretyofthe selectionsdespUe]thefirm and positive information that except 31 of.-^uch 'selecled candidates,no infirmitycouldbefoundMnth r^encpto others, IS nothingbut total disregardofrelevdnciesJind alloMnng to be carriedaM^ay by irrelevancies,giving a 2« he oj-or W-P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatten; Page 54 oj 96 - .• t ^ • • :: V:^ \ •••: j ;• i I • ^I.'' • <r completego-hy to coritextiialconsiderations]throwingto the winds theprincipleofproportionalityin goin^farther than what was strictly and reasonably;to \nieet the situation. In short,, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extteme and unreasonabledecisionofcancellingthe entite'selectio\.s, wholly unwarrantedand unnecessaryeven Sn thSjacti situationfound too, and totally in excess of the nati. and gravity of what was at stake, therehj^ virtua rendering such decision to be irrational." ' • • i !

57.. The High Court, therefore,,cannothe said'to'be right in applying the principle of mass cheatingcases in the instant case. 'i ^. I i i ' ' ' • , j • j -

¶58ContentionofMr., Dwivedi, as noticedhereinbefore, centersaroundcondemnationofselectionand not of\he candidate. But,- when the services of the employees are terminatedinter alia on the groundthat they mighthave aidedandabatedcorruptionand, thus, eitherfor[thesake, of probity in governance or in public interest,tlieir •services shouldbe terminated;the courtmustmti'sfyit}selj that conditions therefore-exist. The court'>M'hilesetting aside a selectionmayrequire the State to esiablishthat the process was so tainted, that the entire Selection process is-liable to be •. cancelled. We,.however,, do not agree with the submission of Mr. Dh^an: that the decisionofthe CommissionM'as collegiatein natureas it IS well lmown thatone ofthe membersofthe Commission was biased, other members..could.also be''influenced\by him-. [See Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khdlid Mujih Sehravardiand Others, (1981)1see 722] '• i '

¶59In a case of this nature, thus, the question wAich requires serious considerationis as to whether-due to misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates-should,alsosuffer." ;40.. In East Comt Railwayand another(si^prk),tHe Supreme I ^dealingwith acase relatingto recruitmentto the post of Giiief T\ lal re lly ••h"j- •! j' iiiiEteaHi vi-'i.' Court pist, W.P.-(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmaliars Piige55-of96 :r i i • I aiiiiik : i'1-v^hereinthe Administrationcancelledthe t3Aping test and fiiced d^e for.fresh typingstest. , The Tribunaljustifiedidie cancella a even ion and issuanceofanotificationfor afreshtest. The Higi Courtin spt kside the orderofthe Tribunal,in awritpetitiohfeyfehose the Appeal, ca adid viiho were successflil in the' first test. The High Court dire31: petitionerto proGieed with the selectionprocess.' refeningto its earlierjudgmentshas heldas under::J "14. It is evidentfrom the above that while nb candidate acquiresan indefeasiblerightto apost merely]bicausehe has appearedin the examinationor evenjojmkdplaJs in the selectlist, yet the State does not enjoy tin uhqiialifiefl prerogative to refuse an appQintment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit•of the candidates ck reflected by the merit list prepared:at Ae \eAd 'of tA selectionprocess. The validityofthe State's^kecisionnot.th nrnke an appointmentis thus a matterwhicPtid not beyonk judicialreview beforea competentWrit-coiirt'Ifpnykich decision is indeedfound to be arbitrary, appropriate directioT;iscan be.issuedin the matter. The X)00[ xxxx )0{XX xxxx ^. Suprerr G

¶28lhat is not, however, the position ,r,o,.uru •case. The order of cancellationpasskd byfhe competeAt authority was not preceded even. by a: Prifna fiick saiisfactionabout the correctness,ofthe.allegationsrnade by the unsuccessfulcandidatesleavealone an inquiry^n^ the same. The minimumthatwas expected the authqril was ^a^ due and proper application;of \rrimd to thh allegationsmade beforeit andformulation'andrecording of reasons in support of the view that the-compIteAt authoritywas taking. ' ' ' in' tH:e ins'tant W-P.(C) No. 220'4-20l4&connectedmatters - Page56'pf96 ates the; ourt •M

¶29There may be cases where an enquiry may be called for into the allegations, but there may also be cases, wJiere even on admittedfacts orfacts verifiedfroml record or an enquiryhowsoeversiimmar)^the same maybe', it ispossible -for the cofnpetent authority to take a decision, that there are goodreasonsfor maJcingthe orderwhich the authon^! eventually makes. But vi^e find it .difficult to^:sustain ak order that is neither basedon an enquirynor even aprima facie vieM> taken upon a due and proper.application^f mind to the relevantfacts. Judged by 'thdt\siaridardthb. order of cancellationpassed by the competent'authdrity falls short of the legal requireitients quashed by the High Court. '

¶30We may hastento add thatwhileapplicationof min -the. m.aterial available to the coj^^petent.authority is essentialpre-reqiiisitefor the makingofa valid order, requirementshouldnot be confusedwith the. siifficiencyof such material to support any such order. Wikher oAnot the materialplaced before the competentauthorityyvcis in the instant'casesufficienttojustifythe decisiprita:ken by it is not in issue before us. That aspect may havd assumed importance only if the competentauthdrit);whs ^slicmntj have applied its mind to whatever material whs'available ' to it before cancellingthe examination.Since\application ofmind as a thresh-hpldrequirementfor d valid'orderIs . conspicuous by its absence the question \vhether tlae decision was reasonable having regard th ihd.'material before the authorityis renderedacademic.\Sifficiencycr otherwiseofthe materialand so also its 'admssibility.to supporta decisionthe validitywhereof,is b.eingjiidicially reviewedmay even otherwisedepend upon t\>.efacts arid circumstancesofeach case. No hard andfast rule can he formulatedin that regardnor do we propose to do io in this case. . , .: ' ' ' I

¶31So also whetherthe competentauthorityought to have conductedan enqidryinto or verificationofthe dllegatioiks beforepassing an order of cancellationis a rriatter]thai would depend upon the facts and circumstancesofkach case. It wMy often dependupon the nature, source,and . I and-was rig qiisi J f ! W.P:(C)No. 2204-20N d connectedmailer.'; Page 57, of 96 •• •••I- ._i : "iL credibilityof the materialplaced before the authority It may also-depend upon whether any such exercise feasiblehavingregardto the natureofthe controiersy,th^e constraints of time, effort, cmd expense. \But ^what zi absolutelyessentialis that the authoritymafdng ihe orde'^ is alive to the materialon the basis ofwhich\itpurport^to take a decision. It cannot act mechanically,or iind'er an impulse, for a writ court judiciallyreviewing any siicn order cannotcountenancethe exerciseofpower vesteclin apublicauthorityexceptafterdue andprgper'[application of mind. Any other view would amount to cbndoninga fraud upon suchpower yvhich the authorityexercisingth^e^ same holds in trust only to he exercisedfor a legitimatl purpose and alongsettledprinciplesofadministrativel^wl

¶32The next question then is whether the selection she be finalized on the basis of the test held earlikr or matter allowedto be re-examined.by the aiitlaorftyin contextofthe representationreceivedby it. In'oi^opinio). the lattercoursewould be more in tunewith the dem^nd.'i ofjusticeandfairness especiallywhen a second test \has been conductedin whichall the in servicecandidatesllav appeared. The result, of this examination/testhas however, been declaredso far apparentlybecauseof pendencyoftheseproceedings. uld the the

¶33not, thb If upon due and. proper consideration:of thd representationreceivedfrom the candidates who we?e imsuccessfiil in. the .first examination, the compifent authoritycomes to the conclusionthat the testearlierhelli s-uffered from any infirmity or dfd not give 'a fair opportunityto all the candidates,it shallbe\freeto pa^s h fresh order cancelling the said examination aft^r recordingsuch afinding in which event the\second test conducted under the directions of the TriUmml would becomethe basisfor tne selectionprocesstobefiiaalizedin •accordance with la-w-: In case, however,•the 'authority com.es to the conclusionthat the earliertest.sufferedfrom no proceduralor other infirmity or did not dause Uy prejudice to any candidate, the second test/examination I'hP-(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 58 1 -i- •I ..'1 - : ••1. k 'if ' i'". .. i . : i -• .. V:' •: 'ii •'i ! . -j • ; i . ; I shallstandcancelledandtheprocessofselectiomfinaljzed on the basis ofthe test held earlier." •'\ I

¶41Similarly,in JoginderPal ml others(si/ipm),;tlie SupremqC aifterreferringto its judgmentin InderpreetSingh\KaMon ch I , I ' ' ' which has been reproducedabove,.,has in paras 3^ and 40 •se Court umm). las hel d as under '39. It becomescrystalclear-thatthe cohcer/iof'theCourt. M^aS thatfor the misdeedsof some candidates, meritorious candidates should. not sufj^r. honest and Therefore, endeavour should he made' to. segregate 'the tainted candidatesfrom'thoseyvho were withoutdny\stigma.an\d had been selectedbecauseof their sheer merit and not o:a accountofany illegalconsiderations.We yvoiddalso wk to reproducesome ofthepartsofihe contusingjiidgnent authored by Justice Dalyeer Bhandari (as -HisMordsh^p then was) with the aforesaidmessage, eloquently anhl impeccably:

¶118Undoubtedly, in the selectionprocess, there have been manipidationsand irregularitiesat the b^ehestofR.k Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab •Pubtic .ServiA^ Cormmssion. On careful-scrutiny of., thel facts'- ark circumstancesofthe case, in my consifleredopinion, tHe Pligh Court ought to have made a serious endeavour }o segregate-the taintedfrom, the non-tainted'carididtites. Thoughthe taskwas certainlydifficult,but by Wstretkiof •imagination,itwas not an impossibletask. : ' XXX

¶124The High Court has not consideredthe case ir th proper perspective. The consequences \pf dn 'massi, -cancellation'would carry a big stigma partidularlji.on cancellationofthe selectionswhich tookplace becauseU seriouschargesofcorruption.The questionariseswhithir W.P,(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 59 of96 t'l. i'i I. • r • • ^' - ' I .. for the misdeeds of some candidates, Honest and gdod candidates should also suffer on en masse caricellathn leading to•termination of their^services? Wipuld tlrose honest candidates be compelled, to stijfer without tlierk' beinganyfaiilton theirpartjust becausethe Respondents find it difficultto segregatethe cases offainted]candidc from the othercandidates?The taskmay be djf/icmfor Respondents, but in my considered view, in the interes 7 7 ^7' •*- > i rtes the J all concernedand particularlyin. the-internestof honest candidates, the State must undertake this task. The unscrupulouscandidatesshouldnot be allowedtd darJag^e the entiresystem in.su'dha mannerwhere innocentpecpt'e alsosuffergreatignominyandstigma: | i i' ,

¶125This•Court had an occasion to examirib k simila . coniroversyin.the case ofOnkarLalBajafi,case (sup."'a^ In that case, there M^ere serious allegations'of'polit'ca. patronage in allotm.ent of retail outlets:\of petroleiir.7 products, (LPG . distributorships md ] SKO-LD.O .dealerships).This Courtlaiddown that how\c6ul'da larg~ number ofcandidatesagainst whorn there wds \not e insinuation be. clubbed M'ith handful of thosk ^ho h said to haye been allotteddealerships/distnbi^itorships accountofpoliticalconnectionandpatronage?Tfiis'coiirt clearlystated that the two were clearly uh,equals. Equ.ci treatmentto unequalsjsnothingbut inequality):%is is most importantprincipleM^hich has been laiddoim in thk case by this Court. The Courtfurtherobseri^edthat-to\pit both the categories,taintedand the rest, diparks wHolly usjustified,arbitraryand unconstitutional,beingsviolqtive ^of A}tide 14 of the Constitution. In somewhat siiTiilar circumstances,in this case, the Government; insteak if discharging its . obligation, unjustly resgried to \tlle cancellationof all the allotments en masse\by trei^tii^g unequals as equals without even primafixcie examikiAp their cases. Those officers whose services\wereaffXtld becauseoj en masse cancellationhave not 'been given dn opportunityto representbefore the concerned^avithorltid. In ihe case ofOnkarLai Bajaj'therewere.41^3 cases'land the task was indeed difficult tp segregate the, cases If politicalconnectionandpatronagewith other cases. 'Bik, W-P.(C)No. 2204-2014c?' connectedma/ter.s ve 'er s o Page 60 oj 96 ^348®™™ :i r-I.;.; •V:- i-.' ; }--'r I ^" ••i ' '^1 ' n''-: • "]' •W-I i i ev.en then, this Court while,^settingaside th'e order of\the. Government cancelling the , allotment, Idppqinted Committee of two retired Judges, one of this. Court 'and another from the Delhi High Court,^ and j tfiey. requested to examine all 413 cases, and decide the matter after getting the report from thai Committee .apppinted by the Court.

¶40In visw of the above,' the issue of entire selectio process having been vitiated would have arisen only i findings of the Committee were that it was' not possib distinguish the cases of tainted from the nqn-tainted ones and there was a possibilit}/that all of them'hduld have got •the benefit of wrong doirigs of Mr. SidJnil and h accomplices.Fortunatelyfor these Appellant^,it is not so as they have been found innocent. The Appellants gs ensconced, earning a safe place,, once thdy dre removec from the category of nefariouspersons. Though ihe taintec candidates have rightly receivedtheir coineiippance bu the innocentpersons cannot bepunished,witfi tfiem. Thus it is difficultto acceptthefallibilityconclus.idh^ the High Court." • • -r'th e'to

¶142From a readingof the.abovejudgmentsof the SiiipremeC jfbllowingpositionemergegj- ^ ; ; ihe -V '' • I- \~y\ • i i-'. / Durt, the ting and adid Eites who giv ris 3 to 'a

(1)A distinctionexists betweena proven case of fiiass ! i i I an unprovenchargeof corruption. •; '

(2) When ahighpercentageofmarks obtainedby the ca; appearedin the selectionin a centrein questiondid suspicionthatunfairmeanshadbeenpiacticeid.

(3)If the examinationhas been vitiatedby adoptionof unfian-1means' on a mass a scale,.it would!be wrong to.insist tliat a detailed M^.'P.(C)No. 2204-2014 cfe. connected matters Page 6 0/9 ' I; M . ' ' I '' enquiry into the matter ,and examine each individual cade itself,whichofthe candidateshadnot adopted-unfairm o ns sal • r • .t 1-- i i l.U ov ' (4) Where there is no mass'copying nor the final result was sh I have been influenced by the unfair means by any candidate^ ' " • ' ' ' ' • result should not be interfered with. ^ ^n tb'jl SUChf;^^ :(5)Effortsmust be made to segregatethe taintedfroi-nthe ' i [ candidates but it is only in the event ifi.ii • is fo nc -tainte and- •to be impossible or highly improbable',eh '|masse termination/cancellation could be issued. I . i " '

(6) To put both the categories of tainted and nonltainted ' i . ' wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being o :clers of o par is ve 'iof i-violati . Article 14 of the Constitution of India. •

(7)The Court while setting aside the selection jDrocess, the State to establish that the process was, so.tainted t selectionprocessis liableto be cancelled. ; ;

(8)No candidate acquire an indefeasible right ko a m,a^ Liat ' require tie entire i pc t .r •' . I • . - • because he has appeared in the examination or bven fourid in the select list, yet, the State does not enjoy an urj prerogativeto refusean appointmentinan'arbitraryfasli t \

(9)The decisionofthe Authorityor the Statemustprecedeby a qualijpe4;.i facie satisfactionabout, the con-ectness-, of the alleg ^'V-P.(C)No. 2204-2014 & connected matters ion. prima a ions and 62 of 96 •I • . i ' _lLi__LU;_Ll_ -I • I H—Tj-fl n'i r rtg ijfpgmffHfiifii ••ti forimilationand recordingofreasons in supp0iiofthe the competentauthoritywas taking. ^ ' I

(10) The decision of the competentauthority:can be base ^is^-^-thatjj! admitted facts or facts verified from, records or an howsoever summary may be, but, an OTaef,Neither ^enquirynor aprimaf^^cieview is urisustain'ablk,

(11) Sufficiencyor relevancyofmaterialwouldnot be unlessitis so perversethatsuchadecision-carmc^tbe E.rri I ' ' " ' ' : :43. It is the case of the respondents,that theyjrelyiupon !reportby the Directorateof Vigilance,;report ofthe Comr Ibestthe preliminaryreportofthe enquiryor investigationpi: ec d on,; :i, ijuiiy en.q - '. ' i •' i '••• • 3ased on toe into ved. It. pre nitte imihary ; ;and at rsuant to the :h. jorders passedby this Court, which can be consUreia-asan a IeviderLce,whichsubstantiatesthepreliminary:reportoftheDir|<,toitt|;|| Vigilancein supportoftheirdecisionto cancelthe selection

¶41In the preliminaryreport of the Directoratelof Vigi looked into tlie procedureadopted for the recriiitmentfor t Jimior Executive(I.T) fi-om differentaspects includinga applicationprobess,writtenexamination,intervi.few,result. Mitional^, pr( an :ess-yhichiii \ DStI of • ^V le pi liver ;isem^nt,jM' O'MI?. ot the candidates,called for the interview; test booldet/msv With regard to written examination,some of the observations preliminaryreportare as under:- " ' . • ! •••! i in the IV.P.fCJNo. 2204-2014&connectedmailers Page 6.1 of.i •i ; "4.1.3It is apparent from the agency's'- 'inqpiiity adopting 9/10 digit roll numbers that the agency was already having pre-printed Test booklets/OMRsheets in advance before conducting the exam for advertiserhsnt no.02/2012. This is against the spirit-of.fair and transparent conduct of exams. : , • I , ' • • • i• I

4.2:4 The emails to the candidates requestirig to download the hall ticketwere not sent before commencementoftfie written test on 26.08.12. Also it was not checked that how many candidates had downloadedtheir,hall tickets. This casual approach might have Jed to :lower\ p'ercentage (19%) ofcandidates hirning upfor the written exam.

4.2.5 The half ticket issued by the Dte:. \Of HR to candidates was not having their scanned photographs and signatures uploaded at the time of application matching the same during the written .examine conducted by the agency. The details!o/ the o recruitment applicants were forwarded by Directordfe HR to the, agency in excel format does^ not include t scanned copy ofphotograph/ digital or scanned signati of the candidate. Therefore the signature and\photograp of the candidates were not verified during/after the writtei exams. This creates opportunity for proxy sittings in th exam. ..... I / itii ali

4.2.6 It has been observed that the observer have give their report in a tailor made form i.e Total Np. ^f Candidates and their attendance .at the 'specific cen HoM'ever, no specific reports/Comments 'irt the form of general administration i.e any -dQuht about the question/copyingor leakage of exam or.' any specific complaint made by the Candidate at the partidular center was not given. However,.Directorate'of HR \sou^Tt tie report through KED/APD on conduct of the examination which has'not been'submitted by most of .the,, center -observers. : ;

4.2.7. The agency vide their letter dt: 19.09.12 suhlnitted the result of written test to GM (HR) which was held on Of :>r. o: he re h c W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected malfars Pagi 64 of i •• -.i •. •1 : i-Hi 'j. M.i. ; •; i f H-'v ' ^ y r:;i •i • .,'1 : •-i Tr• ••'. . • i-.; ; i ^ • • y.;'- ; .1 ;• : ! ;;

26.08.12for thepost ofJE (IT). After receipt of the result from the agency the result was uploaded on AAIwebsite on

16.10:12. However, it has been observed .that no crosscheck or re-verification of the result viz^a-yiz marks obtained by_ the successful candidates has been done byt he HR as a confirmation. . • ;

4.2.8. It has been ohseiyed that after-feceiying tl' applications online,, all the other activities were dp? manually or through Ms CPR. This is not'\in\ spirit online recruitment systems.

4.2.9 There is a scopefor unscrupulous,dajididatesto rt away with the question paper in the beginning of exam or adopt other sophisticated electronic gadgets to copj> ad leak the paper which can be solved and.passed on to the candidates .sitting in the examination center sinbe there is no preliminary screening ofcandidates.: i i '

4.2.10. There was no syllabus provided to t^e agency/candidatesfor writtenexamination.IThe.patterrio^ examinationwas provided to the agency/candidates in th$ name of the syllabus

¶144Similar^, under the, heading "Resulf ttie |followihg we: • 1 • ( • ' I :observationsofthe DirectorateofVigilance:- •, '• [ ^

6.2.1 Following has been observed from the list cf ; selected candidates: ' ' \ ' j

6.2.1.1 11 out of 11 General candidates,Aoiilof 5 \ OBC candidates,2 out of3 SC candidatesand, 1 out of1 STcandidateselectedfrom thepostarefrom DelhiRegion. i Out of 20 candidates selected 14 candidates<are either. ; from Haryana state or have obtained hheir\qualifying degree from this state. n

6.2.1.2 The candidates^ .of Delhi • region mo belongingto the Haiyanaor.studiedthere'Navescoredvp to 20% higher marks' in the written exam •in their stly W.F.fC) No. 2204-2014 (6 connected mailers I^ggi 6.)of ' ' •' 1'-', • ' ' ' I' I :>•. i •> '! *!• ' 'i " ' i,• i j; •.i. 'i; ^:'y:-j.:! ••li respectivecategoriescomparedto any otherstate/region.

6.2.1.3 6 out of U general candidates, 3 out of 5 OBC candidates M>ere selected due to higher fwi-ittenmark and scored lower marks in interview. • . ' . I

6.2.1.4 Out of the 11 selected general cariclidates candidateshavesecuredless than'70percentages]ofmarl in their qualifying degree, out of which 6 candidates 65% marlcs or below in their qualifying degree.^ •

6.2.1:5 Out of 5 OBC candidates seleqiedfdr the held DOSt were having 63% or lesser marks in their Qualifying degree hut scored very high marks in written exams loM'er marks in the interview. ' :• ! I , ar d

6.2.1.6 Out of 20 successful candidates 8 candidates are from Maharshi Dayanand University and,'3 candiclates are from Kurushetra University. ' ' .

6.2.2. Following has been observed fromUhe list b unsuccessful candidates: ^. i ' :

6.2.2.1 The 12 out •of 14 unsuccessful general candidates have secured marks in written•ex;ams ranging from. 73 to 76. All these candidateswere algood mix of all India students. Am.ong these 12 unsuccessfulgeneilal candidates3were havingmore than 80% ofmarks, 7. wir having more than 75%> marks and 2 were \hdving mc than 70% marks in theirqualifyingdegrees. '•

6.2.2.2 The remaining two general cand\da belonging to the Haryana scored very-,high marks written exam, but could, not he selectedas one canclida\e scored very low marks (5) in interview, and the candidate did not attend the intei'^^iew. '• Both candidates have secured less than 70%] Marks in qiidlifying degree. s in other these the

6.2.2.3 Similarly2 OBCcandidatesbeloriginglto Haryana or studied there scored, very high marks W,P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected matiers Page the n 66 ofi V-.1. xj. • ••• ..P: T , i--; • -r

¶3• : ' • -• • mi Bm 1 iP'-- • .-r . I: l-i' •' - -' V • , • ^ i •f: r -. • • •. J"- •written exam but could not be selected as 1 OBC candidate scored very low marks (4) in iritervieM' and the other candidate did not attend the interview.^; 'Both' thes^^ candidates have secured less than 70% marks-in their qualifying degree. ' i

6.2.2.4 The only unsuccessful SC '- candMa. belonging to the Hajyana or studied there-scored highe. marks in SC categor)^, but could not be selected due to ver poor marks in the interview (11). The\candidate secured 72% marks in the qualifying degree. \ ; ; t y has

6.2.2.5 The presence of the candidates ofHaryam region or having qualifying degree from Hafydna in t? list of unsuccessfid candidates is very low candidates out of 36 and are mentioned in Para 6.2

6.2.2.3 and 6.2:2.4 of the report. These.5 candidates scored up. to 20% more marks than other' cdndidates ^ ' ;i I their respective categories but were not selected diie : very poor marks in interview or being abs.erit. The, candidates could have been selected if they\ had sdprea even 50%) marks in the interview.

6.2.3 Majority of the general candidates fmally select 3C for the posts appears to be predeterminedcandidatesby virtue of their high scores in written examination. Th analysis of the results indicates that' the rharks of the •written examination-Mremanipidatedto favoiir a s^et of' candidates mostly belonging to Haryana state or studied., there. These candidates are otherwise not'acddemicdll I, i sound and does not appear. suitable for ;• the \pos considering their credentials and scores in interview. i/e on y

2.2, na

6.2.4 The five OBC candidates who. have,scorecfhigi marks in written examinationfor the five [vacancres. OBC categoryalso appears to be predetermined. This not in line with the all India trendofscoreswhichs'tr'on, suggest manipidation in' written exam. However, Hyo them could-not make it to final selection as one of tlie candidate scored only 4 m.arks in interview and 'qne candidate could not attend the interview. is oj W.P.(C) No. 2204-20N & connected mallen Page 67 of^ iwptiij rhivrmirmwmm '• • • i. ; "1 •• •ji'; • • I. 'i' !i i 1 I .1, I (5.2.5. One of the SC"candidates who have scoredMgh marks in written exam,for three vacanciesin S(^-categoiiy also appears predetermined. . However this eandi^a\e could not make it tofinal selection J)esides scoring higher marks in'the written exam 'among SC candidates duk to poor score, in interview. •' , •' j • • •' ! !' ^ • i I ' • • I

6.2:6. The candidates who have secured bare minim:umbf 5 to 10 marks out of30'in the interview are.also 'conringin the merit listfor givingoffer ofappointment\diie tg the'ir higher percentage in the written test which 'is-ha weightageof.80%. However, no action wds \aken in regard by departmentofHR. • j I. ^

6.2.7; The random checldngofwrittentest'mdrks^^obta by the candidates appeared for the intei-viewwas ccn out by the''teamand it is obsei-vedthat marks of'one of V candidateMs. Mona Taneja-(Roll No.lld^$7)]comqs: 103 whereas the marks obtained,has beefishd^mas 1 the resultsprovided by Jvl/s CPR. •This creates Hoiibt validity of the results. . \ vmg this inea rieci le to U in over

6.2.8 The majorityofcandidatesselected'arefrom-Delh Regionin whichHaiyanastatealsofalls. Thd\RMgion-wisc mimbers of candidates who appliedfor\ the[post a.id subsequentlyappearedfor writtentest are as.underyvhi^h.. shows that 44% candidatesappearedfor written test arl '. \ from DelhiRegion. However, in thefinalselectionis 90 candidates are fromDelhi Region. Center Name Ahmadabad Allahabad Chennai. Delhi Giiwahati Hyderabad Kolkata Miimbai Nagpvr Center Code W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014A connectedmatters Total Applicant

¶9483533 8438 3164 1753 1354 1007 %\ of Cahdidaies' It',- •appeared Written test-total-fd >144 (22.06%. '222-(23.42%) \647 (18.3%) 11962 ((23.25%) \36\(16.43%) '440 (13.91%] '••37D(21.I1%\ '•244(18.02%) ".155 (15.39% Page 58of96 . - •-1;'-: I. .. 'J. I I Trivandrum 2004 206(10.28%) Total 23061 4426 % ofDelhi Region candidates among the candidates appeared for written test: 44% ' • i % ofDelhi Region candidatesselectedcimong\the candidates called for interview. 69.6% • '• % of Delhi Region candidates finally selected i.e 18 candidates out of20 : 90%) I >1,

¶45On OMR sheets of the candidates, called 'for the intbrview ! I" following are the observations:- "7.2.1 ' Followinghas been observedwhile analyzing the OMR sheets usedfor the M>rittenexamination:' \ i. In the columnof OMR sheets name, rollNd., booklet series and Test Form No. etc., has been filled hy\ tie candidcitesin ink orpencilasper theirdesire, no cleai{cut instructionsis givenagainst these columns. \ \ a. The OMR sheetdoes not indicatethepostcode, \da of examination etc. • \ • Hi. The OMR sheets suppliedwere not having S'eria Nos.

7.2.2 It has been observed that Dte. Of hA has\ n ensuredthefollowingbefore/afterconductingthe exam: a. Vettingof the answers keysfrom, third indepeAde agency. • ; 1• b. Checldng of sample test booklets/sample 0.1\ sheets. \ l c. Reconciliationoffinalresidtwith the OMR shdt. ot

7.2.3 The marking of the answers in the OMR sheet done by the candidatesby darkeningthe circles with FIB pencils, which can he tempered/alteredwith in hbsenpe,of proper checks like obtaining a photocopy of, the OMR sheetsai the exam, centersby AAIobsei'yers.

7.2.4 The table for 'A' series booklet shows that W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmattLUs nt m he Page'69 of96 ^thej i -i I .. j 1 •1 • i ; • I candidates belonging to Haryana state or studied, there or have scored higher marks in written exam \have.marked same options for the 10 wrong questions in' this test booklet. It appears that these candidates] were, supplied with answer keys whereinsome answerswere,detiberciplv markedwrong,probablyto controlthe scoring'ofmarlis in the writtenexamination. An extract.ofthe table in respect of these candidates is as below: Roll. No. Name \Wrong. 'Si. •A Place of Residence Marks • • obtained in written exam wrong 110487 Successful Mona Taneja Karnal, Hajyatia 17: •an. fee 45 (4j 72(4) wei 'ing ion 'candia f scored mcfrks Hiei 'Pf\\ same I j atesi ,; j;i V-hav^l higher | exam 'i j (21-33(3): '• '58'M 73(i)\8l 57 :m - 2(2, sw^rs • ; . 111479 Successful 114555 Unsuccessf i:l 111091 Successful .Vineet Asiwal Sumil Sandeep Chaurasi a Bahadurga rh. Haryana • Jind, Haiyana Kanpur, U.P 32}.

7.2.5 The table for 'B' series booklet shows candidates belonging to Haryana state or stiidied have scored higher marks in written exdrn [have same options for the 12 wrong questions in booklet. It appears that these candidates were W-P'-(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatlp's thdt there mar] the Sli P.age 21(4) 29(2) 4^(4) 72(4)

(i)im dlmv answ 2\l(4) 2f>(2j ^P(h 3(1. 87(4j 17, I9( cinsw ''2m:; 73(1)82 : rs '• I ,' W)\ - smj: ... 87m 1-/0, vr''rl :m(2i ')-lQi ers : i •(3) the or zed est 70 of96 s' t . with answ.erkeys -whereinsome answerswere\d0herately markedM'rong,-probablyto. controlthescoringofmarks in ihe writteAexamination. An extractofthe-table-in respcct ofthese candidate's is as below: ' ' Roll No. 112292 Successful 114864 Unsiiccessf ul Name Ms. Joyti Yadav Anurag Duhan Residential address Gwgaon, Maiyana Rohtak, Haryana Marks. • obtained in written' exam Wrong • answers 22\ 21' No.-v\W{ any swt rs /laving optigi : same r idi, o iates: have iliighm. i m 1 exam': mai-ks wnitte 14(4) 0) 66(2)

(4) •IfP. Answkrs •: i8(4^: •/ 6i(4yl "':i'8(2}\r : •72i\(3)\- :. ml. 1^72 ;MS Answers

7.2.7 The table 'D' series .booklet s]i^s \that the candidatesbelongingto Haryanastate or stiA^iidtheteof have scored higherharks in written-exark haie m:ark^ec same options for .the 11 wrong quesiioks\iri this tes', booklet. It appearsthat these candidates,werksuppliea with ansY^erkeys whereinsome answerswere dklibe^ateh markedwrong,probablyto control,the scoring.'ofmaAs-ir the Mmtten exarninatidn. An extractofthe tabled,in reLec ofthesecandidatesis as below: Roll No. Name 111946 Apoon'a W-P.(C)No. 2204^2014&connectedmatten Residential address Tri Nagar, Delhi .' Marks obtained in written exam Wrong answers SI w.-ong answp havin No, dfi [tiof nciiiates! irki •itte % H2). 7^(4) Page 110/96 :• ! • • I oreti hi^h:^r\ nexam v; .m/ . m). 82 (4). 83(1).: 112406 108082 t14866 109090 107914 Sunil Phoiir Sachin. Pitnia Mahesh Yadav Vandana ManoJ Choudha ly Panipat, Haiyana Gurgaon, Haiyana Rewari, . Haiyana Gurgaon, J-faiyana Delhi .20 29: 2g 86(2). 112 (2)- ans ver : J , :ri vi . \ [• i • ! • 97(4).W n 39(2). 78(4). 82 (4), 86(2)] h: kns sm-A 79(i).,.\ 83(1); .97(4), Ij: ii:

(2) wei 8(3). 39( 7S| S2 II. answei'sr 2). '4).

(4) '2). 8(3). f2). -4). a 86(2). aiiswe •36(m\-'\ •55(4)'. 'mix 83(1). 97(4). •55m, '97(f). -11 rs ; 3m •M4) • 79(1) 97(4). -11-I ): i ",--1- !"••;! 8(3). 39(2). 18(4) 82 (f 86(2) II.2(i) aliswe. 8'(3). 39(2, 78(4) 86(2) 112(. rs, ir • -55(4, (ih^.83/1. •• 9m ^)-lll >r'• ^

7.2.8 It has been noticed that there is;a relations between the same questions in the different, series, findings are tabulated below: ' • . hip SI. No. of the same questions in various series l4(-7) 46(+25) 58 L l9(-7). 22(-7) 51(+25) 26(-7) 38(-7) 5l(-7) 62(-10) 63(-I0) 54(+25) 58(+25) 10(+25) 23(-h25) !n2(+30)-. l03(+30) 72(-10) 77(-10) 112(+30) in(+30) W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected mailers D 3I(+10)' 36(+10) 39(+I0)' 43(+IO) 55 (+10) 8(+10) m+io) 83(+W) 92 (+10), 97(+10) Th Remarks All questions same different •number depen'ding upon tpe seres of the booklk. serial\number: shown math^inalically related. •be. <^g t K Ig er al •St The 2of 96 I : ''Deduct 60 if total exceeds 60 • ; , It is evidentfrom the table that all the tesUbdokletsJries are mathematicallyrelatedand answers in different,sdries can easilybe computedy\nth a singlekey.

7.2.9. On the basis of the above relationship•coptpar ofthe optionsofthe samewrongquestionsamongdiffe series was carried out and the same tabulated helow: SI. No. ofthe same questions in various series '.son ^ent 21 01) -14(4) C D Remark's 26(3) 29(2) 33(3) 45(4) 58(3) 72(4) 73(1) 82(3) 87(4) Ms. Mono Taneja 19(3) 22(2) 26(3) 38(4) 51(3) 62(4) 63(1) 72(3L 77(4) • Ms. Jyoti Yadav 46(4) 51(3) 54(2) 58(3) 10(4) 23(3)- 102(4) . 103(1) iim. 117(4) Sh. Yadav Maim 31(4) 36(3) 39(2) 43(3). 55(4). 8(3) 82(4) 83(10) 92(3) 97(4) : • Sh. , Manpj Choiidhqry The number 'i within Ibracket !shows the • No. ]option j : marked the I candidate. • All Ith candidates have same for questidns ivrespe^ctivc. oftheii^seties for which the ansyvers wroii!>] nan opt th ese art The tableshows that.the candidatesbelongingto Haryanc siate or studied there or have scored higher marl's ' writtenexam have markedsame optionsfor the.10 wro, questions irrespectiveofthe series. Thus it'can be inferr thatpredeterminedcandidateswere suppliedwith answ keys duringorprior to the examinationresultingin sai optionsfor wrong answers. Such type cfkmilarityluh markingone ofthe option out offour is abriprmal4?ii cannottakeplace withoutoutsidehelp during orprior examination. i . ir er ame 'le 0} to

¶46Against test booklet/answer keys, the, follbwing iobservations:- : ; ^ "8.2.1 On examinationofthe\testbookletsSeriesA, \B, i1-V.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters W G Page 73 of96 ;re the^ i '1 i! &Dprovidedby the HR,folloMnngis observed:. | , • • . . i • a.-r No colunm was provided for mentioning'the Roll No. hence; there exist possibility to exchange the test bookletsfor copyingand alsoprovidingthe'ansM^ersfroin outside. \ b. Test Date and Post code \vas not meiitioiked. c. There was no instruction on wrongjanswer negative marking. ; • , " •• •• I . d. - Instruction for use of mobiles/calculators electronic, gadgets is not mentioned in the test booklet. _ ' : .i . ' e. No instructions"weregiven in the bookletfor fi, up the OMR sheets. ' ^ I or f The used test booklets were sought from-L directorate but the ,concerned officials 'hdvei no clue whether the test bookletare given to the cbndiilatesaft^i completionof written examinationor still ayaflable wkl.. the recruitingagency. This confirms that.Directorate'^p}^ HR did not pay much needed attention to the recruit 7z> merit process.

8.2.2 Thepatternofthe questionpaperfonit discipline kept at par with non technical disciplines; i.e 5C questionsfrom the IT disciplineand 50% frok Genei Knowledge/Aptitude/Reasoning/Englishetc. ' Whereas the other technicaldisciplines70% ofthe questionswere, from, technicalside and 30% questionswerefrom Genera Knowledge/Aptitude/Reasoning/English etcl. The trealmen of IT as non. technical discipline is not justifiedJnd appears that no thgoutwasgivenfor deciding,pattern questionpaperfor this highlytechnicaldiscipline.

8.2.3. The questions asked in the written test randomlycheckedandfolloMnhghas beennoticed: \

8.2.3.1 Among general questions two[ numbers questionsyverefoundwrong. (Q. No.2 &21 lin serie^ ' '% •a in f wer Of iiJ'-ililllnii'llTnBillflTliiW'n • i i-"'- I. •i -R •• li' yV.P.fC)No. 2204-2014c&. connectedmatters Pose 0/96 Q. No.55 &14 in series 'B\ Q. No,27&46 in.series^ and Q. No.12 & 31 in'series 'D') as there, is no correct answer infirst question and in the second question question asked itself is wrong. ^ \' ' '\ • 'C t} • I

8.2.3.2 On perusal of the answer keys submittedby the agency to Dte. OfHR ina sealedcover,^it isyseenthk same is not certified or countersigned by the duthorized signatory. ; ' • ' : '

8.2.3.3 It has also been 'observedfrdjn]the answer keys that no correctanswer is given againkonk question i.e BookletSeriesA-Q No.14, B-Q. No.7, C-Q.'N(B.39'& h~ Q. No.24: Hoyvever it is found that the \agency has evaluatedthe OMR sheets by taking option .3 as correct answerfor this question. This shows that the-agency casual approach during'evaluation. ; •nt^iriiirrtirTtiymwMn ''1:. i•••; " i • " , r

¶47The final conclusionofthe Directorateofvigiiariceis as Lindc!t:- From the observationsmade throughstage wise anclj.ysis brought out in previous sections,following,conclusio can be made: ' ns

9.1 The recruitmentprocess,has been manipulated favour a set of candidates belonging to Delhi regior. especiallyHaryana state or those candidates'^who \haye obtained their qualifnng degree from this\state. The higher written marks of these candidateswith kheirpoor credentialsdo not match Mnth the.averagemarks obtained-by all India candidateswith bettercredentials.iFiu^thei^ has been noticedthatalargepercentage,ofih'einopti(}ns wrong questions matches with, each othkr whicih abnormalwhile markingone out offour options. '-TLis can he concludedtha,t theirresultswerepredetermined one ofthefollowingpossiblemanipulation: ;

9.1.1 These candidatesmighthave been suppliedwith the answerkeysprior to/duringthe examination. \W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&conncciedmatters Page {s of9 f9.1.2 The OMR sheets were left blanlc by ihd^ candidates •and the same were filled up later o before declaration results and these concocted answer sheets^ (Oli/IR) yvei submittedto AAI tosupport thepredeterminedresult ofth written examination. ' " ' • ' ' ! o

9.2 The •agencyfor conducting the.written exam wc hired byfalsificationof thefacts, eliminatingcdmpetiticn and withoutverifyingthe credentials. Further^the agenc yvas givenfree hand in the conductof the exUnjihationand noproperchecksandbalanceswereput inplale.ltherJfo} involvement of. the concerned HR officials, in ti manipulationcannothe ruledout. . • ' i | !

9.3 The integrityoftheresultsprovidedby the,agency also doubtful in view of the wrong questions in the\ test booklets and discrepancies in the answer ke^s likk no answersfor one questionand error in rnar^kslobtainedby one ofthe candidatei.e Ms. MonaTaneja. }

9.4 The recruitment agency M/s CPR does not falls under the purview,^ofthe CorporateVigilance'department, therefore detailed investigationof this case coiild not be carried out. However, detailed, inv,estigation\ \)f. irregularitiesin the appointmentof the agindy mdy be orderedfor fixing -responsibilityof the concerned.HR officials. IS

¶148.That even the Committee constitutedby! tlie ^;Chainii lAirports Authority of India on the advise of:the,the then ; ' i AdditionalSolicitorGeneral also submittedits fe|jort on !^o' ,2013. The Committeein its report, was of the opinionthlt iprocess of the written examinationconducted by! the agenc Iquestionable. Accordingto the Committee,in theIgiven si ir X":' .• •, .. rgi-r'irinrR^irTa'fi^iiaiii • i ' • • I •!" I ' • "" • If ^ i -i '! ,• i"; 'V !. -•I ''.-:;'.' ; ^ I" ; ' ii; f •• •;1 . : ' . ' i':- j -W H " • i f ,fViJii';ii •• •i 'Jr.; Id m" e is arn0^J I •i • fn\ I ''I !- • • 'i I ; situatior it is: • •W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmailers Page 75 0/96 p|ossible to correct the faulty process of examinationby ponc ue ' • I • r • \fritten test again without involving the previous;agencyisub edt 'to--1!.--i:: maintaining all other conditions of the recruitment.;

¶49Inthe reportfiledby the respondentsafterundertakingthe pre ! • • •' • , ' 1 ds directedby this Courtvide its orderdatedMay 1^015, it is sta' • - • ! ' i withrespectto 45 petitionersthe reportdetailsas uAder;;-- "Report on Recruitment to the posts' of, 'JM flT/Engff-Airports Authority of India has been 'a^ised by the Learned ASG who appeared in the matter on Ql.0.5.2015to conductan enquiryinto the exams conductedmrespectbj Junior Executive (Engg-Elec), Junior-R^ecutiie Livil), JuniorExecutive (IT) &JiiniorExecutive (AirpJr Operations) to examine • whether there\ was., any irregularities w.r.t thepetitioners. Accordingly, a cor/mittee consisting of \officers VigilanceandHR Departmenthave tabulatedHhkdata ana analyzed thefacts. : • ;ecl The credentialsof the 45 petitionersare tabulatedand attached as Annexure-I to this report ', as per khki candidaturefor the respectivepost. Thepostwise cirAlysh ofthe facts are as under: are

¶1PATTERNOFRESULTSOFWRifTENEXAPlINATION ' I ! • The Region-wise/Cmtrewise numbers cf cahdidates appliedfor thepostandsubsequentlyappearedfor wi test & interview are as under: a) Center Name Total of total • Pi;esence w no itfen of •W.P.(C) No. 220^-2014&connectedmatters Page of9 cessiii.^;/; i;,| v; -ii-i •• i ::i • I- [. ' : ' h rl '• • i-Vii . f. • * ! 'otal'. no. 'i 'of ' l Ahmadabad AUahabdd Chennai Delhi Giiwahcili Hyderabad Kolkala Mumbai Nag,pur .Trivandrii Total Applicant 641 • 3533 843S (36.39%)

¶2193164 1753 1354 1007 2004 23061 Candidates appeared Written test for 144(22:06%) 222 (23.42%) 647 (18.3%) 1962 (23.25%) 36(16.43%) 440(13.91%) 370(21.11%) 244(18.,02%) 155 (15.39%) 206(10.28%) 4426 candidates in I"' 100, as per written test 73(44.33%) too, car cat iritt didates erf - rvieM u 'O 38 <67.8:6%yr. "'•••I The successrate in terms ofpercentage,of the candidates who appearedfor. Delhi as Centre, is] disproportion high. , alfy i' Allthe 5petitionersfor JuniorExecutive(ITj) cippearedfor the written examinnfinh n-f l^olhi -fnv /jn^\ the Mmtten examinationat Delhifor Junior'lEtecWve appeared for the written examination at Delhi Centre belong to Haiyana.

(IT) and b) Center Name Ahmadabad Allahabad Chennai Delhi Guwahati Hyderabad Kolkala Mumbai Nap^pur Trivandrum Total Total . Applicant 1292 3293 9429 (40.77%) 2722 1639 1887 23126 %• of Candidates . appeared. for Written test 860' total 3173 (49.94%) 324 • 6353 •Presence ' 'candidates in 7'' \100 as per Avritten'test \0 •'1 '0 >94(94%) •1) : •i ^100 Shri Naveen (RollNoJUSlS)S/o Shrv OH, 'Prakash.o ofpetitionerdidnot appearint he writtentest) Rernainim 27 petitionersfor Junior Executive (Airport\Operations^/ postappearedfor the writtenexaminationatDMi Centre 24 belongto Haryand,2to Delhiand1to Rhjasihcm. .c) IE le m i:'! i -I "ir-t tgl , of7 ndidtites'i j a It .-t V "i , t ! r '• I ! 2C7(7mm •265/."'f: j: fV.P.(C)No. 2204-2014 connectedmatters Page 78ofPi Center Name .A'hmaclabad. Allahabad Chennai Delhi Gmvahati Hydevabad Kolkata Miimbai Nagpw Trivandrum Total Total Applicant •188 1136-2652 (33.90%) 1345 7817 % . of Candidates appeared Written test total for IIS5 (43.67%) 3D •291 '2713 Presence of candidates in 7" 100' as: per written':test. •1 73 (73%) •4 \i4\ •joa All the 04petitionersfor JuniorExecutive(Civil)':appecired for the writtefi'examinationat Delhi Centre\ 2 of 'kern belongto Delhiandone each to Rajasthand tfPl •' i d) iK Center Name Ahmadabad Allahabad Chennai Delhi Gmvahati Hyderabad Kolkata Miimbai Nagpur Trivandrum Total Total Applicant 1795 4711 (33.88%) 2467 1365 1497 13904 % ' of total Candidates appeared for Written test ^J7 1717(46.38%) '256 3702 •Presence of •candidates in T i100 'as pe, •writ ten] test '0- '2 68 (6S%) Outofthe 8petitionersfor Junior•Executive (Electriccl),7 appearedfor the writtenexaminationat Delhi Centi-eanc 1 appearedat Hyderabadcentre. Out ofkpetitione-s, belongto Haryana,2belongto Rajasthan&I eqch belmg to UP & Andhra Pradesh. ' • ' ' i

¶2•Answering Paitem: •The answeringpatternofihepetitioners written test has been checked and.iabuMed petitioners; are iS as stateme rririiriiirprirTimm ' . '•:•'. .1 05- 'al "'nd [. ididaies led •i ? ••lyiew It6 (79:45%)

¶6• : 1 : I . . • ,."l Qff:\ for i To ca c'ct interview tdl^-rhbX ididatks] fIjH 'f 0!(7lM%)k •16 > 'W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014& connectedmatte'is Page 79of96 JE (Omrations): Name Candidate Nitesh Swnil Kohli of Maim Yadav tl Hilesh Yadav Akash Yadav Ombir Yadav Ramveer Yadav Parshant Aggarwal Suinit Kumar Anand Roll Mo. ! 17072 117204 118065 118240 119068 119672 121348-121764 123200 125052 No. of wrong answers 20' •17 \Common IVroi answers •11(2). '.56(3). '64(^ 69(2). 70(1 77(1)- 7 no. HOJ, : 11(2). . 46(.).. \56(3). • I69(2). 77(1)- 7 no i' ilCi). 56(3), , 69(2). 77(1). 7-no 11(2):. 56(3). 69(2). 77(1)- 7 no 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). 77(1)- 7 no. 56(3)..- 69(2). 77(1)- 7 no. 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). 77(1)-. 7 no. 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). 77(1)- 7 no. 11(2). 56(3). 69(2). \ 70 77(1)-7 no. 11(2). 56(3). 69(2).. 77(1)- 7 no. m). 64(4). 70(3). 46(1). 64(4). 70(3) 46( 64( 70( 46( 64( 70(3) 46(^) 64(^) 70(3) 46(1) 64(4) •70(3) i 46(1) 64(4) \46 64(- 7G(3j, ^ . I i # Sh. Manii Yadav (Roll.No.118065)didnot appearin i interview for the. post of Junior Executive (Airpc Operations) and hence he cannot be tfedted as vd petitionerfor seekingappointmentfor thesaidpost. he ft :k >ort Name of Roll No.' No. of wrong Common' IVron IV.P.(C)No. 2204-2014 & connected mailers Page 80 of96 : -I'- '( '• ' I -'i f 5-i . i • 1 j • •'! i •" r \ ! k- • Candidate Siinil Ashii Dahiya Rohil Kumar Parshant Kumar Chander Shekhar Saini Name of Candidate Sunil Kumar Yadav Rohit Arora Siidhir Arora Sumit Sehrawat Deepak Yadav } 17077 117682 121901 123489 124565 Roll No. 118250 118570 118706 122098 122818 W:P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters i! ;• "Li i n Li lO.. answers No. of wrong answers li answers ; I .! '26(1). 51(2). 98(4). 104(3). 3m. 111(1)-7 no,. ' ,26(1). \51(2). \98(4). •I 11(1) 36(3^. m). 104(3). •7 n6. \26(I). 51(2). \98(4).- : 111(1) .36(3). 63(4). . 104(3). 7 no. •:26(1), ; \51(2).- I98(4). ' 111(1) • '¥(V-63(\). 104(3). 7no. \ I26(1). :51(2). \m). ' i-lim 36(3): ^3('4) 104(3) -7 no. Common , answers 3(1). 13(3). 28(2). 62(2 63(3), 70li). •108(2). i09(^). 116(4) &\l7(4) - '.10 no. Vrong HO. • 13(3). 28(2). 62l2). 63(3). \70(1). 108(2). 109(2). 116(4) & \117(4) - ,10no. I 3(1). 28(2). 63(3). 108(2),

11.6(4) & -10 no. 3(1). ' 28(2): 63(3). 108(2). 116(4) &\117(4) - ]10 no. 3{I).: 2m.- 63(3). ! 7C 108(2). Wi 116(4) & - 10 no. 13(3). 09 '2). 117(4, •13(3) 6p) 70(1). 109(2). 13/3X •62(2X '(I). '(2). Page 81 of96 - li en iii-. Name of Candidale Ankur Yadav Gaurav Rishabh Yadav Abhay Sharma Salyender Singh Anil Mor Hitesh Tanwar Roll No. 11733.5 117847 117903 118135 118547 120435 122039 No. of wong answers 11-II Common Wrong answers | 1(2). 36(1\) p(3). • 80(4. '85(2). .86(3) & '93(1)- 7N6. \i(2). . 3,6(1). 46(3), Sp(4). .85(2). 86(3) '93(1)-7nI •'(2), 36(1)] 46(3).: ' 80(4). 85(2). 86(3) ir 93(1) - 7 No. '1(2). A6(3). .85(2). 86(3) .93(1)-7 No. "• •1(2). \46(3). 36(1). ?0(4). •36(IJ. mx 85(2). 86(3) 93(1) ~ 7No. • 1(2). 46(3). 85(2). 86(3) 93(1)-7 No. 1(2). - 46(3). 36(1). Wi). & m): m 85(2). 86(3) 93(1)-7 No. Moreover,'.as same questionswere, there in differentseries questionspapers (in differentorders), these!'27petitione have givenfollowing6 commonwrongoptions; Booklet Series A 11(2) 46(1) 56(3) 64(4) 70(3) 77(1) Booklet Series B 51(2) 26(1) 36(3) 98(4) 104(3) 111(1) rs Booklet Series C. Booklet Series D 28(2) ML 13(3) 1(2) 36(1) 46(3) 117(4) 63(3) 70(1) 80(4) 86(3) 93(1) There yms mathem.atical relation between ;questiJm'. booklets of different series, as evident from qiiestior bookletfor JE (AirportOperations)hereinbelow: Question booklet Series A Question booklet Series B 1-20 41-60 21-60 1-40 61-86 95-120 : ;^y-P-(Q No. 2204-2014 & connected matter: Page 82 0/96 ;intiiHrn:nnrMmin i • • ;-vl i i'i ! • I-.' •- -r v:.. .! . .'J. •'•I H . I ".' • 1 r •• L A -J- !•. ... .'.1 '.i r- • 87-120 61-94 Ouastion booklet ,Series A Question booklet Series C 1-43 18-60 44-60 1-17 61-67 114-120 . 68-120 61-113 Question booklet Series A Question booklet Series D 1-10 51-60 11-60 1-50 61-104 77-120 105-120 61-76 ' i I •' in differentbookletswerenotshiifflevL ; i BookletSeriesA: As no.'ofpetitionersMnthBookletSeries A is only 1, analysis has been made by considering moresuccessfulcandidate. ' ^ " Name Candidate of Mono Taneja " (Petitioner) Virieet /Isiwal Roll No. 110487 111479 .• No. • of wrong answers on Common Wrong answers ! 21X4). 29(2. 45(4). 72(4). 82(3),: 102(2)- 2f(4). 29(2. 45(4). 72(4). 82(3). 102(2)- '26(V-33(3). 58(3). & 73{ 87(f) 11 no. \26(3). '33(S). 38(3). I). 73( 87(^0 . II )w. & case of Ms. Mona Taneja-(110487),M/s. CP has shown 101 marks in written iest,.^-:^i^hereas answer is quesiiohableasitaffectsthe'overallmeritposition. Bookiei Series C: Name Candidate Kama! Yadav of Roll No. 108621 W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014cS: connectedmcuer;; No. of wrong answers '25 Common Wrc answers I iig 10(4), 23(3). 27, Page 83 o r96 iiisniirii'Mtmi' • aI r.; •i i r. ' i • i; 4-; .! • .ri - • •'\ • ' viJ 'MJ;. n;. 1 ;• J,V .•i; i;.?: J y-av ..i --i ' • • • -i:!--- i • . 'A fA • ic-,;- ' 'i -i; (Petitioner) ^6(4). • 51(3), '54(2). Sml 72(2). 90. 9'8(4). 99(1). .102(4). '103(1). ld6(2\. p2(3)- c£- '(4)-,16no. AJay Yadav (Petitioners) 113029 \}0(4)..23(3)\-27^. 46(1). • 5^(3, '54(2). 5p(3, •72(2).

¶9098(4;, •99(1). \103(1). \112(3) & \(4)-.16ho. 2(4). ^(2). Name Candidate Sunit Phoxir (Petitioner) of Roll No. 112406 No. of M'rong answers ' Common I ' answers >8(3). \ 36(31 •39(2). ' 78(4). 79(1). :S2(4). 83(i). , 86(2). 97(4). : 112(2)- 11 ho. I Mahesh Yadav (Petitioner) 114866 8(3). \36(3). 39(2). \55(4). W4). \79(1). 82(4), 83(1). 86(2). 97(-() !1'2(2)-11 no. Moreover,as sanie questions,werethere in different-series quesiionpapers (in differentorders), these 5 petitioue. havegivenfollowing9 commonwrongoptions': Booklet Series A Booklet Series C Booklet Series D 26(3) 51(3) 36(3) 29(2) , 54(2) 39(2) 45(4) 10(4)- 55(4) : 58(3) 23(3) 8(3) 72(4) 102(4) 82(4) 73(1) 103(1) 83(1) •; : 87(4) 117(4) 97(4) • ! 102(2) 72(2) 112(2)- series: There M>as mathematical relation bet\veen questi booklets of dijferent series, as evident 'from questi bookletforJR (IT) hereinbeloyv: j 'e\ jn Dii 'W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters Page 84 of9(' ! t •T I • • ' M •\! j 1" M I i Question booklet Series A Question booklet Series B 1-7 54-60 8-60 1-53 61-70 111-120 71-120 61-110 Question booklet Series - A Question booklet Series C. 1-35 26-60 36-60 1-25 61-90 91-120 • " 91-120 61-90 Question booklet Series A Question booklet Series D 1-50 11-60 51-60 1-10 61-110 71-120 111-120 61-70 IE (EmSo Civil): '• —:.l.L j.—11 1_ I ! j Booklet.SeriesA: As no. qfpetitionerswith-BlokletSeries A is only 1, analysis has been made by consideringojie more candidate. Name Candidate of Avinash Kumar Mghavar (SC) (Petitioner) Prabhat Singh

(SC) (Uttar Pradesh) Roll No. 101382 Successful 100649 Successful No. of wrong answers Common Wrong answers 17(3). 31(2). 39(4). 8m JO no. 17(3). 31(2). 3m. ^7(1). 109(1). 10 no. 18(2), 36'(2) 60'(4) 89\l) 7(4) - 18(2) 36(2) 60'(4) 89(1) 7(4) - BopMetSeries ]}; No. ofpetitioners with BodMetSeries is 3, analysis has been made. D Name of Candidate S. Nandakumar (Petitioner) RolfMo. 100716 Successful W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 c& connected matters No. of wrong answers Common Wronganswers 2(2) 18(3) • 45(4) 46(3) 49(4) 53(4) 57(3) 82(4) 18(3) 37(3) 80(4). ICl8(2} 24(1, sm 94(4) Page p 0/9 -iaiiiwiii i ••; 1^" ^ '-M • i.ri.! • 4-T -1--- • ' a : .1 r li: 109(1)- 9 no. 109(1)- Mohit Panwar

(SC) (Petitioner) Aide Kiimar Krishnan (Pe/iiiqneij 100232 Successful 100724 Successful 2(NA) I8(NA) 45(NA) 46(NA) 49(NA) ' 53(4) , 57(NA) 82(4) I09(NA)-. no. including NA(Not Attempted) 13(3).:' 18(NA). 53(4). m). -

(NA)-,5 no. i/c n'a 13(3);. 18(NA). 53(4): 93(2): : (TV/lji- • no. i/c HA ' : As broughtout above the averagecommonyyronganswers 'for 3petitionersare around 7. However, being the less number ofpetitionerthe comparisonof comm'on wrong answersamongall the questionbookletseriesis difficult. • i ' ! As there is no negativeinarkingin the test'thereasonfa not attempting a question creates doubt-about the candidate. 18(3) 24(1) 37'f3) 53'(4) 8d(4) 9'4(4) •108(2 i69(. Even afternot attemptingseveralquestions,thepetitioniZr Sh. Mohit Panwar. got fairly good marks-'in wr examinationand 8 mivrks out of30 in intervieyv.: But ..... ihepetitionerwas in-selectlist. Further.the\9questionsne has not attemptedare same as ofthe otherpetitionerswith similaroptions. Itappearsand indicatesthatthe'petition is a manipulated candidate. i ^ ms m There wa.s mathematical relation between question booklets of different series, as evident from, question bookletforJE (Engg. Civil) hereinbelow: 27-ei W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014c?: connectedmatters Page 8^6q ,;hj KlIINH-liWHin : Ji • ' I : r .; - I: '! i u i 1 •' i'M': 'P6 i : !.i -r ! l""' i- . Ij ij ,f -i'Vi. Uv[ . f.M a.! 0 • ! I •-il Series A 1-10 11-15 16-36 37-120 Series B 27-36 1-5 6-26 107-120 37-106 & Series C 12-21 22-26 27-36 II & I-77-120 37-76 & Series D 32-36 & 1-5 i 6-10 11-31 57-120 37-56 &' Remarks Reasqntng, GK & Non lechnicat ' i question Teclmicdl - qiisstjon All the non technicalquestionsamong all the series from 1 to 36- & subjectspecific technicalqukstionst from 37^ iipto 120. -As evident from above table sequence of the questions are same. - , ; are arts the Name Candidate of Roll No. No. of wrong answers Common IVrongan. Jaideep Kandoia Kalvala Sweekar 105346 Successful 500539 Successful 2Pf3) 37(2) 3901) '50(3) 7g(2)- 71(3) 85(3) 88(3) •lQ7f])i]13(4j-10no. ' 2'9(3).37(2) 39(4) 70(2) 71(3).85(3) 107(1)'113(4}-W

¶20BookletSeries B: No. ofpetitioners with BookletSeries is 2, analysishas been made. , ^ .1 ! ^ ' B Name Candidate of Waseem Akram

(QBC) Roll No. No. of wrong answers Common Wronganswers Shakti Singh

(OBC) 103219 Successfid 103471 Successful 35, 6(4) 14(4) J8(3) 48(2) \56(2) 57(3) 69(4) ''72 (norattempted) •74(NA) 75(4) 77(1) 7^(1) 85(1) 93(1)'99(4) \l06(l) 107(NA) 'I08(NA)\l09(4 n0(NA) 115(2) 120(3)'- 24\ no. . i/c (NA-No. attempted) 19(3) '6(M), 14(4) 18(3).19(3) 48(2) ,56(2)' 57(3), 65/3) 69(4) 72(3) 74(N4 75(4) 77(1) ' 79(1) 85(li 93(1^ •99(4).: 106(1) 107(NA, 108(NA) '•,109(4) 110(3) 115(2) 120(3) -24 no. i/c (NA-Not attempted) BookletSeries C: No. ofpetitioners,with BbokletSeries is 3. • ' •n Name of Candidate Santosh Kiimari Roll No. 102940 Successful No. of wrong answers yv.P.(C)No. 2204-2014c& connectedmatters Common Wronganswers 3(3) 4(3) 42(3) 44(3) 55(1) 77(2) 79(4) 85(2) Page 87 ofOi i nw'mjjiiiwMW • I • • : I:: r - ! i . |- -[ •; 1•]': i !' ; •[ r ; 1 l-t ! ;; '-i-i Hi Manish Selvawal Parteeic Yadav 104672 Successful 103356 Successful '95(4) f10(2)- 10 no. m 4(3) 42(3) ' 44(3) 55(1) 77(2) 79(4) • 85(2) 95(4) 110(2) - 10 no. •35(4) 39(4) •41(3) 45(4)1 47(1) -49(l)\ 51(2) 63(1) m) 76(1) •86(1) 90(3)\ 102(2) \1I1(3) J4no. ' '35(4) 39(4) [41(3) 45(4) •47(1) 49(1) ^51(2) :63(1) i69(4). 76(1) mV 90(3) •J02(2)' • ,111(3) .14no. I-i I BookletSeriesD: hh. ofpetitionerswith Bi^pMei\Series is.only 1, analysis has been made. ^ •:D Name Candidate Rakesh Saini of Roll No. 105601 Successful No. of wrong answers Common IVrong-an. 11(3) 19(4) 23(3) -24(3)

4.3(1) '49(4) 56(1) 57(2) 59(f) 65(2) 66(i) 82(2) 90(2} 91(3) 103/4)'. 105(3) 108(3).. 109(4) III 113(1)\115(3)119(1) •we 70\3) 99(3) 06r3) V • I rTiTyiimiriirriiirjwiiiii'iiii ' ]\ '"'i' •'*' : r, • i"'-' "i': I'"'- ^^• .) ; I i; /i ;. i : •! •tr ?!• Relationshipbetweenquestionsin differentbookletseries There (w?as mathematicalrelation between question boo differentseries, as evidentfrom question bookletfoi JE Elect.) herein below. ' ' i ! ' dets of' Series /( 1-36 37-120 Series B 27-36 & 1-26 107-120 & 37-106 Serie.'i C 12-36 & 1-11 77-120 & 37-Series D 32-36 & 31 57-120 & 37-56 Remarks •Reasoning, . GK Non question leohmcal Technicalquestiod All the non technicalquestionsamongall the/seriesarefr, 36andsubjectspecifictechnicalquestionstartsfrom 37 uptc As evidentfrom above table the sequence df the question W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014&connectedmatters om Page88of96 •• ! I 1 toi| 12(9. s are": 1J-L-J..-L same. Moreover, as same questions were there in-differdnt questionpapers (in differentorders), these\6pititioneri havegivencommonM'rongoptionsfor 17.qiiestions: \ • . i out Sf. Mo. ofthesame questionsinvariousseries .4 B C D-. 28(3)- 18(3) 3(3). ^ 23(3). 29(3) 19(3) .-l 24(3).^. 39(4) 109(4) 79(4) • ; ; 59(4) 45(2) 115(2) 85(2) - 65(2); S0(3) 120(3) • 90(3) ' \ 70(3) 62(2) 48(2) • . 102(2) : \ 82b;" • - 70(2) 56(2) 110(2) • [ 90(2) 71(3) 57(3) • 111(3) . ; 91(3) ' 83(4) 69(4) 39(4) • , • 103(4) ^

86.(3) 72(NA) 42(3) 106(3) 89(4) 75(4)

4.5(4) 109(4) 91(1) 77(1) 47(1) 111(1) 93(1) 79(1) 49(1) :[ 113(1) 99(1) 85(1) 55(1) ir9(I) 107(1) 93(1) : 63(1) ' ' 43(1)' 113(4) 99(4) 69(4) : . ^ : 49(4) ; 120(1) 106(1) 76(1) \ 56(1) Sh. Jaideep Sh. Waseem Akram Sh. Manish Sehrawat Sh. Rake.sh Sdi a Kandola &Sh. ShaktiSingh Parteek Yadav , '•

¶3Other observations: a) No clear cut.instructionswere there whetherlcandldateW^oll no., Bookletseries, testform no. is to be filled with or pencil resultantlysome petitionershave filled..the pen andsome withpencil. b) There was a columnofbatterynumberon the OMR ^heel this numberwasfpr answer key, it should\hdve bJen bar •. .• . ' W.P'.(C)No. 2204-2014 connectedmalters Page 89 oj 96 s: As'-\ given in • I code form.. 'c) There was no negative working. But;stilhpetitioners ha answered all questions. Usually, when riegatiye. marldng. there, candidates try to answer ,all questions. Moreover cases, it has been observedthat candidate'has eraseij the t options marked earlier and left them blank E.g. Mr. KQhl}-\l (Roll No. 117204). This appears to have been done to rn'an'pi the ranking to accommodate General Category candidate. d) Almost all the petitioners either belong'to Haryanc have done their studies from Haryana RegioA. \ ir Re •r .-i-: • ; i :• , - • I •••i ..ti :• ."i r . ; 'j I-not, , i not omei, \ no. •• -( vt;: ' •' i •• • ir fi of ' ••••1 ^i|' '-•.M but ' e) Petitioners' marks in the academic studies 'were not go still they yvere able to score high in written test'. ; odi f) ,0n test booklets, no column has been provided for men the Roll number. Hence there existpossibility to exchange bookletsfor copyingand alsoprovidingthe tm^wersfront outs

¶4Conclusion a) Comparing the analysis of the results of the all thefotr question to which petitioners belong, it can be concluded doubt that, the-recridtment process has 'been manipiH favour a set of candidates (petitioners) belonging to Delh mainly Haryana state or those candidates M'hd haveobtair qualifyingdegreefrom the state. The higher,writtenmhrks candidates with their poor credentials do not match average marks obtained by all India candidates wit. credentials.Further it has been noticedthat a largeper their options ofwrong questions matches with mch other abnormal while markingone out offour dptions..Had.th fair competition such similarities in the: results examination in all.these discipline was notpossible by a. Followingpossibilities existsfor the manipulationofm i. These candidates must have been supplied'yviththA ans prior to/duringthe examination. • - ! a. The OMR sheets were left blankby thepetitioners and tio th mng' itest ide. ! I'T Do;sts iri;\ hi atedftd^ i:reg.iqn. ea'th^ir vi centage0 which (is ereheenk of nym h the esi ecm^y dts! i ,[ the same W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 &.connected ir'OKers Ppge % of % -.i:: ij._ (1^ Mi '•• ••".!" ' "• •• • v' •• '.r •55 .• >- ;-.-j. •v:] • •' .: i; : ' were filled up later on before declaration \6f results and concoctedanswersheets (OMR) weresubmittedto AAI ib siLppyrtW^ thepredeterminedandresultofthe writtenexdmination. ' ' ' ' 'hese'f^l b) On careful examinationof the answeringpatterns,{result m-ittenexamination,the"Centreofexaminationsimdcredentiah ,fhe petitioners vis a vis other candidates,'it 'appears that" petitioners belongsto categoiy of tainted candidates." 50! When the initialdecisionwas.taken on JanuaiyiSl,201 to M writtenexamination,the reportofthe Committedahdthe Direc E fi ^ iiV^i • fe'l redp4:jL|;y-<3 .01 (I ar a^e:?: .t)f^ ' .- '.V ^ce,, l!; !St ofIVigilancewith regard to recruitmentprocess to the pjbst o were available. Aperusalofthe reportofthe Directcjrateof^ evlen though with regard to IT exam, it is noted, IQce, the inability in adopting 9/10 digit roll numbers, the 'agency was-i • ' ' " i having pre-printed test booklets/OMR.sheets injadvahce befor conductofthe exam; it was not checkedas to how many candi<ia downloadedtheir hall tickets;the half ticketto thecandidates ; : •• • • • ' , I I ; _ . • • • I havingtheirscannedphotographsand signaturesuploadddat the applicationfor matching the same during the written exami ci^oss check or re-verificatioiiof the result vis-a-vi^marks obtair • ' - i the successfulcandidateshas been done by the HR as a confirinati out of 11 Generalcandidates,4 out of5 OBC candidates,2' o 'candidatesand 1out of 1ST candidateselectedfor the post, are: Qelbiregion;out of20 candidatesselected,14 are from Haryaka ^ehc W!<P.(C) No. 2204-2014 connected matters al • j e the r w ;es: Was ti not;;{[ K/. • ^' !•- ' tX'.-- nie ofi u ifi; no ec. by Dn;.] 1 • - -'i • ' 1 ..1 ; froih i ;al!e or • •; 'J. natic at o Page 91 p/5 haye obtained their qualifying.degree from thislSMe; th(j se i . . - • , •' : i —• • ^ capdidatesmostlyfrom Haryanaor studiedthere;hayelscoredIp tc •; V ' I highermarks in the writtenexams as comparedto other!Statekeg; : '. . - ' .. ! • Olit of 1General candidates;,3 out of 5 OBC candidateswerL ^e : . r in Interview. diieto higher written marks and scored lower marks ofj20 successfulcandidates,8candidatesare froni M^harishiDayan University and 3 candidates are from Kurukshetra•Uhiversit}!; unsikccessfulcandidates,from Haryanawere 5 out!of36, and \i/ho^ : I • • alpo scored, 20% more marks than other candidatesin their categoriesbut were not selected due to .poor'mfe in/the ; ' ' : A^art fioin the abovcj many infinnitieshave been pointed ou VigilanceDirectoratein its report. The report reflectcertailomission and commissionon the part ofthe ER departmentas Well. In itj is noted, from the report, that various infirmities, inegulaiities,likelihoodof unfair means having biebniadopted, bearingon the resultof the examination. i ' •^ Sil. Similar is the position, in the preliminary; report pursuantto the orderofthis CourtdatedMay 1, 20il5|,vvithreg; oitherdisciplines.The reportshavingbeenreproduced,are selfspeal It is not a case, where there was no material before the ajuthority,while he took adecision(eventhoughpreliminary on .ec •i 'i the V:;r .; j • • tivei respec Inte^vi by W.P.fCJ No. 2204-2014&connectedmailers sr bstariGei'^jl • • ^•^j I' :edure:;[ pto sut iarc had:-a:ji:niK.. ipeterit !• ; con report was Page 92 of I' i.'' -J—L—,— . _ not there). The materialin the forai of vigilancerqsoittbeing a cle on^, was sufficientfor the authorityto cometo a cohplusipnto canck ' . . • . ' I . ' . exariiination. The, subsequentpreliminaryreport submittedpursuani .1 I _ •' > the Prder of this Court would also justify the action. iWhen mEterial e}<jists,.thedecision is justifiable. Sufficeto state,litIis'for t which is seized of the matter, to come to a defmiie 'conclusion 6ri . I I I ; culiiabiritywith regard to the conduct ofthe exsiii. •A perusal of thtefe reports,it would be seen that there has been a systemic.failur the conductofthe recruitmentprocessand possiblejiri^egularities'lia . . i ' ' been committed during the conduct of the written examinatidn ' I I '' ' ' Sknjay Jain, learnedAdditionalSolicitorGeneral,idilrihgthe c the:arguments,.hadsubmittedthatthe AiiportsAiithoirityofInd n|ot|, in any v/ay, cast aspersionon the petitioners,Who have b iiji the reportsas the investigation/enquirieshave beeric'arried AirportsAuthoiityof India throughtheir inhousemechanisniiinfik le ;ai •edi:|i:J the:!; ;to: gehcyu the I? ..''•i 'r i--- thei" i'": ilit M5{r' ; of : r t; : i:'i •fifl tl is- . • - :!• 01 irs a een out w )uld I Liamed the: 'o\ e a^:j ihyestigatmgagency. Accordingto him, the iiatureofresulljsdepi(-tiriy[:'- the successful candidates being from one State who Examinationin Delhicentre,as the statisticsreflects,doesder had .ot hi Ltthi^ conductofthe recruitmentprocessby the agencyis riot aboveBoard. Iri^ I T ' I - • • - ' other words, it is his subnlission,that it is not possible to seplara|ei: inted candidatesfi:om the tainted ones. He would also ^tate. thsrf;; I, iV.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&connecledmatters Page 93 of96 •u.;— iJ !., • 1- ; ' - lLI!2IinEilIfl!''if ; ( - •] ^^ ' . ' . , 1 there is some material with the authoritiesfor forming an opinic cancelthe recruitmentprocessinthe largerpublicinterestwhen the in;questionare pubhc posts. The submissionmade by Mr. Js appealinginasmuchas the relevantreportseven thoughnaming£ )n •'} to';;;-;:] StS'.;.-:!; • •{ \ isS ill: I, "of ' ! t , ; ; • i • .es.?i-vii' i the petitioners is only to drive a point that tb,e Inature of ] includingthe correctariswers/wronganswersdoes;sUppd^irre s rnay be right in suggestingthat no aspersionjean be c? pe,titionersas the respondentitselfdecidedto allowlall the pet • " • 'i i sit in the fresh recruitmentprocessby allowingittemJage rela I i I exeikiption. Ifthey were regardedas•tainted, there! was!no" quek st DC in ome ;ati mla: o tion.er thej !:ao Tee f •• ••• • ' Vf of J xation al owingthemto takepartin the fi.-eshrecruitmentprocess. 5^' The submissionofMs. JyotiSinghto justifytheiresults,In gijoundsincludmgthat, Delhi Centrebeingabig centreconsiiting Sjates, and it is natural that the maximumnumber of applican tljisCentre,so alsothe.numberofcandidatesqualifyingthe examiiialion,'': is riot appealing,when on a deeperlook on the repbrtsrefeiTedto does indicatean abnormal outcome,which would jjustifythe action. on v irious ollliv are iiii :ib[>vej' impugned .|i

¶53Insofaras the submissionsmade by other counselsi.e. Sbrma, Mr.U.P.Singh, and Mr. Manoj' V. George that the I • " • " • evidenceofwrongdoingagainstany oiftheirclientsis concerried I ' Ml-. R,ahul'Il re ls nO: ffice I'KP.fCJ No. 2204-20H c?: connectedmailers •Page 94 0/9 offliMir™ to state, in view of tlie conclusion of this Court above, that the tict ] ofjthe examinationper se, by the agency, as well as ceilahi omis ms.f;|.T'j an'd icommissionson the part of the HR Department,being :iot at?'3ve' nst bcjard and the fmal outcome of the recruitmentprocess, being a xa: I I public interest, which requires public posts should.l3e-marmedthro gh.a U) fair,: transparent and legitimate process, the plea is liable to be i ae Eyen the submission of Mr. Manoj V. George that son petitioners have taken examiAationfrom the other, centres, \ not hold good when the process followed, whicli resultesd attendance; likelihood of irregularities having be|en:committed : - J' '" ! I h^d anultimateeffectonthe results,is alsorejected: ' • 5|4. Insofar as the otherjudgmentsrelied upon by theflearned for the petitioners i.e. Smt K vo ej of aid m W :ed. j- • ! • f. the [ also / . 1-low lich ourisel 'lava \ ' ia S: 'Ors:, Fso m 'eep •. andManojManu &Anr, (supra),on the as|j)eG;tofirre in the examination,are concerned,they have no application (bfthese cases and the conclusionamved at by this Courtabove preceding paras. The action of the'respondents^needs to b(^ ; Sufficeto state,anythingsaid inthisjudgmentis'liinitedto the im actionunder challengein the ^vrit petitionsand:woiildhave nc Page in larities till fadsl'i ; . i • in the i,: r'- effkt in; W.P.(C)No. 2204-2014&'conneciedmatter:; Doj •Pd I • I I i I I • ; IN' • liii'" :i!r-!nF"fro i lES3ran;iirnririin.i|inM^ the investigationsbeing canied out, pursuantto a EIR, which noted above. I do not find any merit in the writ!petitions. The dismissed. i :i '551. No costs. j : CM No.14388/2014 (M 1 R 10 CPQ in WJiG); 4597/201 aspec sam ! • I ' ki •! •j1 • : - ,; i ^ '!•! • IS i' This is an appUcationunder Order 1 Rule;10^CPC .filed by afjplicants namely Parshant Aggarwal, Manu Yadav and Parteek-Ya for impleadment as petitioners. In.view of the fact that writ petition is dismissed, the prissent jj i application is also dismissed. dlM Noo 85§4/2i014(for directions) im W,Po(C)2204/2014 (M No. 9152/2014 (for stavli in WJofQ 4597/2(0)141 ' • No/16766/2015 (for stay) in W JiC:)-8098/2iM5 . No. 16788/2015 (for stavli in WJ'iQ•8110/2015 ; Cl^No. 7761/2015 (for stay) im W.P.(C) 4279/2015: CI^ Noo 1142/20,15 (for stay) in WoP.(C) the In viev^/ of the fact the writ petitions are (JisiTiissed, applications are also dismissed. •MNUARY 25, 2016 icm/ak/alcb W:P.(C) No. 220'I-20N & connected mailers '. vi/\ Page 96 , ' 1 s -i • i are I thei v;- davMi ' ,' i. ' I .1 pregeiit: of9